Quote:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

Can't argue against that, Honky.

So is there any specific thing about 'the order of things' that you hate, and feel the burning need to dismantle?  What would you replace the "order that exists" with?

Seems a bit like change for the sake of it otherwise.

Not at all. I've always thought that everything is just as it is. Not much point in changing it - changing it to what?

Karnal wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:59pm:

Not at all. I've always thought that everything is just as it is. Not much point in changing it - changing it to what?

That would seem to contradict your previous post.

Please help me learn karnal.  I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties.

Contradict my post about arguing? I can't.

Anyway, I'm a hopeless arguer. I always end up agreeing.

Karnal wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Contradict my post about arguing? I can't. Anyway, I'm a hopeless arguer. I always end up agreeing.

So you'd agree that

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

adequately sums up progressive goals? 


the question then is why?  What's the matter with the structure of the world which presently exists?  It's not perfect, but nor does it deserve to have war waged on it.

No, I'm saying I can't argue against it. I'm hopeless.

Actually, it reads a bit like a public service policy document. I've never understood them either.

Oh I see.

Well if you happen to run into any other progressives who can help me learn what is so horrible about the order of the world that it needs to have an indicsrimnate war waged on it, point them in my direction please. 

"Mummy issues" would have sufficed.
"Daddy issues" to back it up.

Have you tried asking Deathridesahorse?

Karnal wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Have you tried asking Deathridesahorse?

Yes, he said something about anthrax breeding nuclear weapons.

But I like to get a variety of opinions and sources.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties.

Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?

Nope.

There you go, Honky.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:01pm:   I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties. Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters.

You'll have to expand on that.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:13pm: So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?  Nope.

Why not?  Isn't it the very definiton of 'progress' and thus 'progressive' to do away with the existing order and bring in a new one?  Isn't conservative, the opposite of progress, the idea of preserving what exists?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:37pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:34pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:13pm: So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?  Nope. Why not?  Isn't it the very definiton of 'progress' and thus 'progressive' to do away with the existing order and bring in a new one?  Isn't conservative, the opposite of progress, the idea of preserving what exists?

I wouldn't call it a declaration of war.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:37pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:34pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:13pm: So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?  Nope. Why not?  Isn't it the very definiton of 'progress' and thus 'progressive' to do away with the existing order and bring in a new one?  Isn't conservative, the opposite of progress, the idea of preserving what exists? I wouldn't call it a declaration of war.

so it's not the sentiment itself, but you just feel it's worded a bit strongly? 

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:01pm:   I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties. Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters.

The 2 are mutually exclusive. 

Saying all things are equal, when by any measure they are not, cannot be called rational.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

Pretty much.

They definitely hold a gloomy and pessimistic view of the world. Contentment or happiness only seems to exist in some idealized future. Funnily enough, that future never seems to arrive.

I bring it all back to physiology.
Lefties have a depressive and/or neurotic constitution. Their world outlook is only a manifestation of that constitution.
If their souls are sick, then it's a given their philosophy will be sick.

pro·gres·sive   [pruh-gres-iv]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress,  change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress  toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress,  or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.







Improvement seems to be the underlying point about the term "progressive".




Come on wesley.

Let's hear you argue against improvement.

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 7:23pm:

pro·gres·sive   [pruh-gres-iv]  Show IPA adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress,  change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor. 2. making progress  toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. 3. characterized by such progress,  or by continuous improvement. 4. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics. 5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step. Improvement seems to be the underlying point about the term "progressive". Come on wesley. Let's hear you argue against improvement.

Where did that fluff piece come from? Sounds like something a progressive wrote themselves, not from an outside observer.

Just like to point something out to you just in case.

Change + progress does not mean it is the right change or the right direction just because a progressive suggested it.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 7:23pm: pro·gres·sive   [pruh-gres-iv]  Show IPA adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress,  change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor. 2. making progress  toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. 3. characterized by such progress,  or by continuous improvement. 4. ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics. 5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step. Improvement seems to be the underlying point about the term "progressive". Come on wesley. Let's hear you argue against improvement. Where did that fluff piece come from? Sounds like something a progressive wrote themselves, not from an outside observer. Just like to point something out to you just in case. Change + progress does not mean it is the right change or the right direction just because a progressive suggested it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive


That well known leftist organization dictionary.com

pro·gres·sive
(pr-grsv)
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
8. Grammar Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.
n.
1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.
2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.
3. Grammar A progressive verb form.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progressive



ANOTHER leftist marxist pinko dictionary.

Synonyms: developed, evolved, forward, high, higher, improved, late, advanced, refined



Antonyms: backward, low, lower, nonprogressive, primitive, retarded, rude, rudimentary, undeveloped



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive







They're EVERYWHERE.



It's a CONSPIRACY.

Every progressive Christian worth his/her/its "pillar of salt" is sure to enjoy the revised story of Moses, whose crusading band of Zionist aggressors ambushed the disenfranchised Egyptian freedom fighters in what became known as the "Red Sea Massacre." Other revised inspirational stories of moral relativism include:

The Organic Garden of Eden
Pharaoh Has Two Mummies
What Happens in Sodom and Gomorrah Stays in Sodom and Gomorrah
Noah Builds Ark to Survive Global Warming
Jonah Saves the Whale
David Appeases Goliath
The Bilingual Writing on the Wall
The Tower of Babel & The Controlled Demolition Theory
Uncle Samson & The NY Times Reporter Delilah
Judas The ACLU Lawyer
Joseph & Mary Celebrate Holiday Season By Donating Fetus To Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Bank
Government Program Feeds The Multitudes with Five "Whole Grain" Loaves And Two Non-Endangered Fishes
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Progressive_Bible_500.jpg

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

So is there any specific thing about 'the order of things' that you hate, and feel the burning need to dismantle?  What would you replace the "order that exists" with? Seems a bit like change for the sake of it otherwise.

Hi Honkytonk

The world as it is today is ruled by the few for the many.

Its called broken capatalism which is one mans dream Milton Freidmanism and is just as bad as communism or any isms you might like to recite.

What would i do, i would like our government to rule Australia not coporatism, we have all experienced both and i say the government is better.

First our governments should buy back all our utilities ie. gas electricity, water, public transport, telstra etc.

Second our governments should get control of the Australian reserve bank, as i'm sure it was sold into private hands in 1963 but treasury still has an influence on policy thank goodness its not the way of the US reserve bank.

Third we should also have an Australian commercial bank owned by the government like for example the commonwealth.

Fourth we should kick out all these looters and pilagers that are raping Australia's wealth and paying pitence in return.

The government of Australia should mine Australia's wealth like coal, oil and gas, copper, gold  etc etc.

If we did all these things, we would indeed be the lucky country made of milk and honey.

As it stands at the moment corporations rule this country and are getting fat of the land, while Australians recieve peanuts.

Thing is it wont last for ever and when all has dried up corporations will be outta here faster than you can drop a hot patatoe.

I say while its there lets exploit it ourselves.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:01pm:   I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties. Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters.

"Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters."


Socialists, lefties, are about 'do-gooding',    .......to 'me', 'me', 'me'.

They are thieves.

They embrace a philosophy of thievery.

They want to steal from those who create and produce goods and ideas, and give that real wealth to the unworthy and to the lazy, for no other reason than to 'feed' their profligate consumption.

IMO, lefties wouldn't know what the ideals of egalitarianism, or rationality were, if it bit them on the ar$e.



Dictionary;
profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.  licentious; dissolute.



Yadda, the 'irrational', 'red-neck'

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

Translate, anyone who will not bow down in submission & worship to the rightard false baal god and his doctrines and dares to think for himself is a heretic worthy of death by torture and boiling alive in oil... ::)

Soren wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Every progressive Christian worth his/her/its "pillar of salt" is sure to enjoy the revised story of Moses, whose crusading band of Zionist aggressors ambushed the disenfranchised Egyptian freedom fighters in what became known as the "Red Sea Massacre." Other revised inspirational stories of moral relativism include: The Organic Garden of Eden Pharaoh Has Two Mummies What Happens in Sodom and Gomorrah Stays in Sodom and Gomorrah Noah Builds Ark to Survive Global Warming Jonah Saves the Whale David Appeases Goliath The Bilingual Writing on the Wall The Tower of Babel & The Controlled Demolition Theory Uncle Samson & The NY Times Reporter Delilah Judas The ACLU Lawyer Joseph & Mary Celebrate Holiday Season By Donating Fetus To Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Bank Government Program Feeds The Multitudes with Five "Whole Grain" Loaves And Two Non-Endangered Fishes http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Progressive_Bible_500.jpg

Truly Soren, when Stephen was giving his speech in Acts 7 he was talking to such as you - people with a form of knowledge of religion, but stiff necked and in open rebellion to the heart of truth, a man of uncircumcised heart with unopened eyes and unhearing ears.  You are a descendant of serpents of that there is little doubt.  8-)

Good God, CW. You have been reading people's posts. The Bible too. I'm impressed.

Karnal wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 10:28pm:

Good God, CW. You have been reading people's posts. The Bible too. I'm impressed.

Dont mess with me on the Bible or the concepts and ideas it describes in both cryptic allegorical form and literally because I will eat most people alive in such a spar.  He who dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide in the shadow of the almighty... ::)

A landmark study by a major university today found the Law of Gravity is selectively enforced and that the heaviest burden tended to fall on members of disadvantaged and oppressed socio-economic groups.

Professor Omar Amabo, Chief Community Organizer and Chair of the Victimology Department at the University of East Angrya recently concluded the decades-long study and revealed the results at a national press conference today. They showed that while it is true that members of disadvantaged socio-economic groups tended to have heavier body weights than priviledged groups, this was not due to bad eating habits and lack of exercise as previously thought but rather a systematic and coordinated over-zealous selective enforcement of gravitational statutes.


http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Ambulance_Chaser_Victim_of_.jpg

Yadda wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:32pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:01pm:   I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties. Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters. "Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters." Socialists, lefties, are about 'do-gooding',    .......to 'me', 'me', 'me'. They are thieves. They embrace a philosophy of thievery. They want to steal from those who create and produce goods and ideas, and give that real wealth to the unworthy and to the lazy, for no other reason than to 'feed' their profligate consumption. IMO, lefties wouldn't know what the ideals of egalitarianism, or rationality were, if it bit them on the ar$e. Dictionary; profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.  licentious; dissolute. Yadda, the 'irrational', 'red-neck'

Yadda the supposed "christian".

ha ha ha ha.


His christ was a socialist do gooder

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 10:58pm:

Yadda wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 10:04pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:32pm: ... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:01pm:   I want to know what it is that makes lefties so superior to righties. Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters. "Egalitarianism and rationality, for starters." Socialists, lefties, are about 'do-gooding',    .......to 'me', 'me', 'me'. They are thieves. They embrace a philosophy of thievery. They want to steal from those who create and produce goods and ideas, and give that real wealth to the unworthy and to the lazy, for no other reason than to 'feed' their profligate consumption. IMO, lefties wouldn't know what the ideals of egalitarianism, or rationality were, if it bit them on the ar$e. Dictionary; profligate = = recklessly extravagant or wasteful.  licentious; dissolute. Yadda, the 'irrational', 'red-neck' Yadda the supposed "christian". ha ha ha ha. His christ was a socialist do gooder

and your Christ is the rightard man of sin, the seed of the serpent.... ::)

I have no "christ".


I'm an intelligent , educated and well read young man living in the 21st century.

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 11:02pm:

I have no "christ". I'm an intelligent , educated and well read young man living in the 21st century.

and yet you fail to comprehend when I speak to you in mysteries and riddles yet you claim to be intelligent?   8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 11:02pm: I have no "christ". I'm an intelligent , educated and well read young man living in the 21st century. and yet you fail to comprehend when I speak to you in mysteries and riddles yet you claim to be intelligent?   8-)

I comprehend that you have a christ complex.

Speaking in riddles?


Why didnt you use the "speaking in parables" line?

"In my last piece here, I commented on the growing body of research suggesting that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not merely ideological in nature. Rather, it seems more deeply rooted in psychology and the brain -- with ideology itself emerging as a kind of by-product of fundamentally different patterns of perceiving and responding to the world that spill over into many aspects of life, not just the political.

To back this up, I listed seven published studies showing a consistent set of physiological, brain, and "attentional" differences between liberals and conservatives. Later on my blog, I listed no less than eleven studies showing genetic differences as well.

Last month, yet another scientific paper on this subject came out -- from the National Science Foundation-supported political physiology laboratory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The work, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (free version here), goes further still in helping us understand how biological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives may lead to very different patterns of political behavior.

As the new research suggests, conservatism is largely a defensive ideology -- and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments. By contrast, liberalism can be thought of as an exploratory ideology -- much more appealing to people who go through life trying things out and seeking the new.

All of this is reflected, in a measurable way, in the physiological responses that liberals and conservatives show to emotionally evocative but otherwise entirely apolitical images -- and also to images of politicians, either on their own side or from across the aisle.

To show as much, the Nebraska-Lincoln researchers had liberals and conservatives look at varying combinations of images that were meant to excite different emotions. There were images that caused fear and disgust -- a spider crawling on a person's face, maggots in an open wound -- but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit. The researchers also mixed in images of liberal and conservative politicians -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

While they did all of this, the scientists measured the subjects' "skin conductance" -- the moistening of their sweat glands, an indication of sympathetic nervous system arousal -- as well as where their eyes went first and how long they stayed there.

The difference was striking: Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or "attentional" patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and spent more time fixating on them. Liberals, in contrast, were less quickly drawn to negative images -- and spent more time looking at positive ones.

Similar things have been found before -- but the big breakthrough in the new study was showing that these tendencies carried over perfectly to the different sides' responses to images of politicians. Conservatives had stronger rapid fire physiological responses to images of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- apparently perceiving them much as they perceive a threat. By contrast, liberals showed stronger responses to the same two politicians, apparently perceiving them much as they perceive an appetitive or positive stimulus.

As the authors concluded, "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right."

What does this mean?

To my mind, it means it is high time to grapple with a fact that we like to conveniently ignore: the left and the right are deeply asymmetrical actors in our politics. If we could acknowledge this, it might explain an awful lot.

For instance, consider a few observations that seem to take on new resonance in light of the latest research:

The Tea Party hates President Obama much more intensely than liberals love him. Or to state things less judgmentally, there is an "intensity gap," as the Pew Research Center puts it, between the right's political base and that of the left.

As of last May, for instance, 84 percent of staunch conservatives strongly disapproved of Obama's job performance, but only 64 percent of solid liberals approved of it. Meanwhile, 70 percent of staunch conservatives viewed Obama very unfavorably, but only 45 percent of solid liberals had very favorable views of him.

What's going on here? To conservatives, the new research implies, President Obama may literally be an aversive and threatening stimuli (or, perhaps, a disgust-evoking one). They fixate on him, and respond to him, physiologically, in a defensive fashion.

For liberals, in contrast, Obama was surely once very appealing, perhaps circa 2008, and excited positive and appetitive emotions. But they've since grown bored or disillusioned with him and gone on to sample many other things in the environment -- like Occupy Wall Street -- always exploring and searching for the new. (All of which, incidentally, may translate into a very serious electoral disadvantage this fall.)

Conservatives opt for Fox News much more strongly than liberals opt for any single outlet. In a 2007 "selective exposure" study by Stanford researcher Shanto Iyengar, it was found Republicans overwhelmingly chose to read fake articles labeled with the "Fox News" logo, but chose a story running under a CNN or NPR logo just 10 percent of the time. By contrast,  Democrats in the study didn't like Fox, but also didn't show a strong affinity for a particular alternative news source -- they seemed to sample information sources more widely.

What's going on here? One possibility is that in a political environment filled with perceived threats, Fox helps conservatives feel secure by giving them ideologically consistent and reassuring information. Alternatively, perhaps Fox's constant negative framing of liberals, and of other news sources, appeals to or even excites conservatives, whipping them up for political battle.

Either way, liberals just don't seem to need an outlet like Fox. Again, they're busy chasing after the new and different -- out exploring, rather than hunkering down.
The big question lying behind all this, of course, is why some people would have stronger and quicker responses than others to that which is perceived as negative and threatening (and disgusting). Or alternatively, why some people -- liberals -- would be less threat aversive than others. For as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers note: "given the compelling evolutionary logic for organisms to be overly sensitive to aversive stimuli, it may be that those on the political left are more out of step with adaptive behaviors."

And thus are we drawn to the only context in which we can make any sense of any of this -- the understanding that we human primates evolved. As such, these rapid-fire responses to aversive stimuli are something we share with other animals -- a core part of our life-saving biological wiring.

And apparently, they differ in strength and intensity from person to person -- in turn triggering political differences in modern democracies. Who knew?

For now, I'll leave it to others to speculate on the root causes of these differences. But whatever those may be, the perceptual gap between left and right certainly seems less than "adaptive" at the present moment. It may be the fault of biology that we're now misfiring so very badly -- clashing in ways that, as with the debt ceiling fiasco, could have gravely harmed everybody in America, regardless of their particular ideology.

The Nebraska-Lincoln scientists interpret their results as a powerful argument in favor of greater political tolerance and understanding -- and I agree with them. Politics isn't war, and it isn't zero sum. It requires negotiation and compromise. Surely our public debates should be guided by something more than threat responses and fight-or-flight.

So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed.

And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 11:06pm: darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 11:02pm: I have no "christ". I'm an intelligent , educated and well read young man living in the 21st century. and yet you fail to comprehend when I speak to you in mysteries and riddles yet you claim to be intelligent?   8-) I comprehend that you have a christ complex. Speaking in riddles? Why didnt you use the "speaking in parables" line?

speaking in parables is uttering mysteries that are hidden from dull linear minds such as your own that have been unenlightened by the Temple of the living god. ::) :D :o

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 10:58pm:

Yadda the supposed "christian". ha ha ha ha. His christ was a socialist do gooder

darkhall67, the 'rational' egalitarian ?

ha ha ha ha.





+++



Matthew 25:14
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15  And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16  Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17  And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18  But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20  And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23  His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25  And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26  His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27  Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28  Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29  For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

Rational?

Yes.




And I dont believe your evil god is worthy of worship even if he wasnt a figment of your imagination.


An evil evil evil fictional character.

Yadda wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:00am:

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 10:58pm: Yadda the supposed "christian". ha ha ha ha. His christ was a socialist do gooder darkhall67, the 'rational' egalitarian ? ha ha ha ha. +++ Matthew 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. 15  And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. 16  Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. 17  And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. 18  But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. 19  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. 20  And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. 21  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. 23  His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 24  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25  And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. 26  His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: 27  Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 28  Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. 29  For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9  And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.

You are as dull and linear minded in your senses as darkhall67 because you can copy and paste, but you cannot speak the mysteries you have copied and pasted as if it came from the very core of your own being - a living word - the words are just second hand to you, quoting the knowledge of another and not your own.... 8-)

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:07am:

Rational? Yes. And I dont believe your evil god is worthy of worship even if he wasnt a figment of your imagination. An evil evil evil fictional character.

The god of my mind is not evil... >:( - he is sovereign and Lord!

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:09am:

You are as dull and linear minded in your senses as darkhall67 because you can copy and paste, but you cannot speak the mysteries you have copied and pasted as if it came from the very core of your own being - a living word - the words are just second hand to you, quoting the knowledge of another and not your own.... 8-)

Well that is your opinion.

And you are entitled to it.

And, you don't know very much.

Another successful thread, Honky. Thanks for that.

darkhall67 wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 11:15pm:

"In my last piece here, I commented on the growing body of research suggesting that the difference between liberals and conservatives is not merely ideological in nature. Rather, it seems more deeply rooted in psychology and the brain -- with ideology itself emerging as a kind of by-product of fundamentally different patterns of perceiving and responding to the world that spill over into many aspects of life, not just the political. To back this up, I listed seven published studies showing a consistent set of physiological, brain, and "attentional" differences between liberals and conservatives. Later on my blog, I listed no less than eleven studies showing genetic differences as well. Last month, yet another scientific paper on this subject came out -- from the National Science Foundation-supported political physiology laboratory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The work, published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (free version here), goes further still in helping us understand how biological and physiological differences between liberals and conservatives may lead to very different patterns of political behavior. As the new research suggests, conservatism is largely a defensive ideology -- and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments. By contrast, liberalism can be thought of as an exploratory ideology -- much more appealing to people who go through life trying things out and seeking the new. All of this is reflected, in a measurable way, in the physiological responses that liberals and conservatives show to emotionally evocative but otherwise entirely apolitical images -- and also to images of politicians, either on their own side or from across the aisle. To show as much, the Nebraska-Lincoln researchers had liberals and conservatives look at varying combinations of images that were meant to excite different emotions. There were images that caused fear and disgust -- a spider crawling on a person's face, maggots in an open wound -- but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit. The researchers also mixed in images of liberal and conservative politicians -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. While they did all of this, the scientists measured the subjects' "skin conductance" -- the moistening of their sweat glands, an indication of sympathetic nervous system arousal -- as well as where their eyes went first and how long they stayed there. The difference was striking: Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or "attentional" patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and spent more time fixating on them. Liberals, in contrast, were less quickly drawn to negative images -- and spent more time looking at positive ones. Similar things have been found before -- but the big breakthrough in the new study was showing that these tendencies carried over perfectly to the different sides' responses to images of politicians. Conservatives had stronger rapid fire physiological responses to images of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- apparently perceiving them much as they perceive a threat. By contrast, liberals showed stronger responses to the same two politicians, apparently perceiving them much as they perceive an appetitive or positive stimulus. As the authors concluded, "The aversive in life is more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right." What does this mean? To my mind, it means it is high time to grapple with a fact that we like to conveniently ignore: the left and the right are deeply asymmetrical actors in our politics. If we could acknowledge this, it might explain an awful lot. For instance, consider a few observations that seem to take on new resonance in light of the latest research: The Tea Party hates President Obama much more intensely than liberals love him. Or to state things less judgmentally, there is an "intensity gap," as the Pew Research Center puts it, between the right's political base and that of the left. As of last May, for instance, 84 percent of staunch conservatives strongly disapproved of Obama's job performance, but only 64 percent of solid liberals approved of it. Meanwhile, 70 percent of staunch conservatives viewed Obama very unfavorably, but only 45 percent of solid liberals had very favorable views of him. What's going on here? To conservatives, the new research implies, President Obama may literally be an aversive and threatening stimuli (or, perhaps, a disgust-evoking one). They fixate on him, and respond to him, physiologically, in a defensive fashion. For liberals, in contrast, Obama was surely once very appealing, perhaps circa 2008, and excited positive and appetitive emotions. But they've since grown bored or disillusioned with him and gone on to sample many other things in the environment -- like Occupy Wall Street -- always exploring and searching for the new. (All of which, incidentally, may translate into a very serious electoral disadvantage this fall.) Conservatives opt for Fox News much more strongly than liberals opt for any single outlet. In a 2007 "selective exposure" study by Stanford researcher Shanto Iyengar, it was found Republicans overwhelmingly chose to read fake articles labeled with the "Fox News" logo, but chose a story running under a CNN or NPR logo just 10 percent of the time. By contrast,  Democrats in the study didn't like Fox, but also didn't show a strong affinity for a particular alternative news source -- they seemed to sample information sources more widely. What's going on here? One possibility is that in a political environment filled with perceived threats, Fox helps conservatives feel secure by giving them ideologically consistent and reassuring information. Alternatively, perhaps Fox's constant negative framing of liberals, and of other news sources, appeals to or even excites conservatives, whipping them up for political battle. Either way, liberals just don't seem to need an outlet like Fox. Again, they're busy chasing after the new and different -- out exploring, rather than hunkering down. The big question lying behind all this, of course, is why some people would have stronger and quicker responses than others to that which is perceived as negative and threatening (and disgusting). Or alternatively, why some people -- liberals -- would be less threat aversive than others. For as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers note: "given the compelling evolutionary logic for organisms to be overly sensitive to aversive stimuli, it may be that those on the political left are more out of step with adaptive behaviors." And thus are we drawn to the only context in which we can make any sense of any of this -- the understanding that we human primates evolved. As such, these rapid-fire responses to aversive stimuli are something we share with other animals -- a core part of our life-saving biological wiring. And apparently, they differ in strength and intensity from person to person -- in turn triggering political differences in modern democracies. Who knew? For now, I'll leave it to others to speculate on the root causes of these differences. But whatever those may be, the perceptual gap between left and right certainly seems less than "adaptive" at the present moment. It may be the fault of biology that we're now misfiring so very badly -- clashing in ways that, as with the debt ceiling fiasco, could have gravely harmed everybody in America, regardless of their particular ideology. The Nebraska-Lincoln scientists interpret their results as a powerful argument in favor of greater political tolerance and understanding -- and I agree with them. Politics isn't war, and it isn't zero sum. It requires negotiation and compromise. Surely our public debates should be guided by something more than threat responses and fight-or-flight. So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/want-to-understand-republ_b_1262542.html

I agree with the article to the extent that political views are expressions of one's physiology. And that left/right views are therefore deeply embedded within us and can't be discarded or swapped at will.
However, I'd be very interested to know all the images presented.
The images mentioned sound as if they were put there by researches to draw out the negative emotions of the conservatives. So of course you'll get negative responses from them and positive ones from the liberals. If the researchers showed pictures to liberals of George Bush, Bank ceos, successful business owners, etc. there would have been anger and revulsion from them and delight from the Conservatives. 

Quote:

So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution."

It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317004747

Now that's evidence, Honky. Your own post.

Looking for a job at the Faculty?

Everything I say is right. [1]

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Now that's evidence, Honky. Your own post. Looking for a job at the Faculty?

360 views - not even 1 attempt at rebuttal of a single point. 
Go ahead and try if you think you can....

Did you write it yourself?

I can't rebutt logic like that, Honky. I must admit, I'm still wondering what your point was.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Quote: So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317004747

That is a very insensitive insight. You should be ashamed of noticing it.

;)

Soren wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:11am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 9:58am: Quote: So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317004747 That is a very insensitive insight. You should be ashamed of noticing it. ;)

You really should learn about the theory of evolution Soren, I notice you have not even learnt the Bible - what use are you as a rightard  mouth piece so ill educated?  8-) ::)

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Quote: So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1317004747

No theory of ideology or scientific law of any kind exists in a capacity for sovereign control over my mind, not the Bible, not Climate Change, Not the theory of evolution - that place is reserved for me alone, the political class have to deal with that. 8-)

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Quote: So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory.

You are on the right track, honky.      :D


+++


If the theory of evolution was valid, lefties, and for that matter, most of mankind, would have evolved into hermaphrodites by now.

Can't you see that it is true ?




Our PRIMARY evolutionary urge is to procreate.

And if the theory of evolution was real, and valid, mankind, by now [considering the strength and intensity of our procreational urge], would have evolved into hermaphrodites, and we would be smacking ourselves senseless, for every waking second that evolution sent us.

Instead of sadly, hanging out for that rave next Friday night, so that we could find someone to bugger, and thereby satisfy our evolutionary urge is to procreate.

You can see that i'm correct.

Can't you ?




Dictionary;
hermaphrodite = = a person or animal having both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics.






You are all, not sure if i'm being serious, are you !       ;D       ;D       ;D

Karnal wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

Can't argue against that, Honky.

I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

Yadda wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 9:58am: Quote: So how do we get beyond our political biology? Well, the implication for liberals seems obvious: If they want to fare better politically, they need to learn to go against their instincts and stay focused and committed. And the lesson for conservatives? Well, here it is tougher. You see, first we'd have to get them to accept something they often view as aversive and threatening: The theory of evolution." It never ceases to amaze me when lefties invoke the theory of evolution, while their ideology is a direct contradiction of that same theory. You are on the right track, honky.      :D +++ If the theory of evolution was valid, lefties, and for that matter, most of mankind, would have evolved into hermaphrodites by now. Can't you see that it is true ? Our PRIMARY evolutionary urge is to procreate. And if the theory of evolution was real, and valid, mankind, by now [considering the strength and intensity of our procreational urge], would have evolved into hermaphrodites, and we would be smacking ourselves senseless, for every waking second that evolution sent us. Instead of sadly, hanging out for that rave next Friday night, so that we could find someone to bugger, and thereby satisfy our evolutionary urge is to procreate. You can see that i'm correct. Can't you ? Dictionary; hermaphrodite = = a person or animal having both male and female sex organs or other sexual characteristics. You are all, not sure if i'm being serious, are you !       ;D       ;D       ;D

we've got a regular biologist here, folks.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

You wish it didn't.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't.

Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing...

OK, well here's the abridged version:

Egalitariansim/marxism/todays left is bullshit.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:04am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:53am: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing... OK, well here's the abridged version: Egalitariansim/marxism/todays left is bullshit.

I think nothing you have to say makes any sense. 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:11am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:04am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:53am: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing... OK, well here's the abridged version: Egalitariansim/marxism/todays left is bullshit. I think nothing you have to say makes any sense. 8-)

hahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ahhhh from you of all people.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:11am: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:04am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:53am: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing... OK, well here's the abridged version: Egalitariansim/marxism/todays left is bullshit. I think nothing you have to say makes any sense. 8-) hahahahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ahhhh from you of all people. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are mind numbingly stupid and uneducated. 8-)

are noooooot...  :P

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:43am:

we've got a regular biologist here, folks.

we've got a regular biologist here, folks.


Please,   .....an evolutionary biologist.            :P

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing...

True, but just for fun, let's unpack it.

"The order of things" is a structuralist term. Foucault wrote a book called the Order of Things - his pivotal structuralist work before he moved onto the connection between language and power: what is often called "post" structuralism.

Structuralism is not a war on anything. It's a school of thought that arose from anthropology. It merely seeks to decode the underlying structure within language, culture and meaning.

How can you declare a war on systems of representation?

Against "the structure of the world that presently exists?" By definition, you can't.

I have no idea what Honky's been reading, but I'm not sure that he gets it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:53am: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:47am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:40am: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:48pm: Can't argue against that, Honky. I wouldn't argue against that either, Honky.......mostly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... You wish it didn't. Oh I agree that it IS the 'ideology'...it's just it's pretty much semantically null...It uses lots of words, to say basically nothing... True, but just for fun, let's unpack it. "The order of things" is a structuralist term. Foucault wrote a book called the Order of Things - his pivotal structuralist work before he moved onto the connection between language and power: what is often called "post" structuralism. Structuralism is not a war on anything. It's a school of thought that arose from anthropology. It merely seeks to decode the underlying structure within language, culture and meaning. How can you declare a war on systems of representation? Against "the structure of the world that presently exists?" By definition, you can't. I have no idea what Honky's been reading, but I'm not sure that he gets it.

I think you're 'unpacking' the wrong bag.  I thought gizmo was talking about the other thread, the one I linked to.  Or maybe he wasn't.

Still, you can't 'declare war on prices' but retailers regularly claim to, and you know excatly what they mean.
When you seek to undermine traditional instituitons - marriage, the family, race, gender etc etc etc and replace them with a 'one-size fits all ' approach which reduces individuals to blank slates, you could be said to delcare war on them, even though you're not actually firing guns. 

Don't be a facetious prick all your life.  Try having a thought of your own rather than foucault this and derrida that.  It might be beyond you, but it won't hurt to try.

Why don't you apply yourself to your original proposition?

I think you're confusing "the structure of the world that presently exists" with conservatism. Structuralism itself is quite a conservative school of thought.

Many conservatives have been seeking to change the structure that presently exists for ages. What's your point?

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

Why don't you apply yourself to your original proposition? I think you're confusing "the structure of the world that presently exists" with conservatism. Structuralism itself is quite a conservative school of thought. Many conservatives have been seeking to change the structure that presently exists for ages. What's your point?

My point is you are nothing more than a drone. 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what youre saying.  I can't speaka your langwich - I'm a real person and as such, I don't speak academic wank.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:55am: Why don't you apply yourself to your original proposition? I think you're confusing "the structure of the world that presently exists" with conservatism. Structuralism itself is quite a conservative school of thought. Many conservatives have been seeking to change the structure that presently exists for ages. What's your point? My point is you are nothing more than a drone.  I'm sorry I can't speaka your langwich - I'm a real person and as such, I don't speak academic wank.

I'm not sure about speaking the langwich - have you read your original post?

I agree with you though. I don't think you understand it. And this makes it hard for you to get the responses you keep asking for.

Perhaps you could make a more user-friendly argument to respond to. I.e, a nutshell.

Fine, I'll play your tiresome, inane game for now.


Quote:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

paraphrased (by honky) to:


Quote:

progressives seek to undermine the existing structures upon which our society was built.

What's my point?  The point is the undermining is indiscriminate.  Undermining the good as well as the bad.  Progressives don't know what they are fighting against.

Everyone else understood it - it's pretty dam simple, but we can always count on karnal the klown to play dumb.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:

Fine, I'll play your tiresome, inane game for now. Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. paraphrased (by honky) to: [quote] progressives seek to undermine the existing structures upon which our society was built.

What's my point?  The point is the undermining is indiscriminate.  Undermining the good as well as the bad.  Progressives don't know what they are fighting against.

Everyone else understood it - it's pretty dam simple, but we can always count on karnal the klown to play dumb.[/quote]

No one ever really knows what they are fighting against. If they did, they probably wouldn't fight. I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think you've thought it through too clearly.

After all, the entire purpose of your thread is to pick a fight with these people call you call progressives. You've picked the broadest target you could find.

Your undermining is completely indiscriminate.

Perhaps you could specify which structures the progressives seek to undermine.

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 12:16pm: Fine, I'll play your tiresome, inane game for now. Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. paraphrased (by honky) to: [quote] progressives seek to undermine the existing structures upon which our society was built. What's my point?  The point is the undermining is indiscriminate.  Undermining the good as well as the bad.  Progressives don't know what they are fighting against. Everyone else understood it - it's pretty dam simple, but we can always count on karnal the klown to play dumb.

No one ever really knows what they are fighting against. If they did, they probably wouldn't fight. I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think you've thought it through too clearly.

After all, the entire purpose of your thread is to pick a fight with these people call you call progressives. You've picked the broadest target you could find.

Your undermining is completely indiscriminate.

Perhaps you could specify which structures the progressives seek to undermine. [/quote]


See post #68.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

So is there any specific thing about 'the order of things' that you hate, and feel the burning need to dismantle?  What would you replace the "order that exists" with? Seems a bit like change for the sake of it otherwise.

what about the freedom and democracy in Iraq ??

been there for a holiday lately :D LOL

Honky, the institutions you mention have been called to question as a result of social change. This comes about through technological change, which always follows some form of social shift - usually the result of crisis. These things always influence each other.

The printing press, for example, saw in the reformation, the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, but these would not have happened without the need for Bibles.

The pill precipitated a huge shift in social values: marriage, the sexual revolution, two child families, and feminism. But the pill would not have been marketed (and probably invented) without the need for workers during WWII and the subsequent participation of women in the workforce in the post-war boom.

Your enemy is a straw man. He exists, but only in response to change itself. Conservatism as a philosophy also has responses to change. This is what social and political ideas are: responses to change.

The current two streams, liberalism and conservatism, came about with the Whigs and Tories after a revolution, a Restoration, and an industrial revolution.

Does it really matter what brand of reaction you attach yourself to? The fruits of Fascism and Stalinism were eirily similar. Both, as we know, borrowed heavily from each other. If Hitler had won the war, he would have seen a similar shift in power to the fall of the Iron Curtain in the 1980s/90s.

This is because power responds to the way information is distributed. The medium is the message. The Soviets could not supress the fundamental technological - but also ontological - shifts that occurred in the global economy.

And neither could many in the so-called free world. This is why you're complaining about "progressives". You find social change, and the collapse of social norms that has occurred since the 1970s, difficult to come to terms with. You blame the erosion of the institutions you mention on "progressives." The Stalinists would have blamed it on "counter-revolutionaries".

Take your pick.

Social change is complicated. It is never the result of one thing, but involves many interdependant factors: knowledge, power, and the way these are distributed in an economy.

I'm not sure if I've given you the response you were after. I can't defend "progressives" or "leftists" or whatever you call them because I don't really know who they are. I certainly wouldn't fight against the way things are - what would be the point of that?

Things are what they are. You can fight or surf. The real fight, Honky, is within.

Take it or leave it.

Karnal, there's a difference between unintended change through technological developments and direct political action which intends to change.
New technology is usually created and introduced for reasons of efficiency. That's the primary aim. This efficiency may have unintended consequences on say family structures which causes a shift in their arrangement. Feminism, on the other hand, was a direct attempt to change the structure of the family.
I am sure you're trying to muddy the waters here.

The direction of change is not an accident, or a naturally occurring phenomenon. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 2:44pm:

Karnal, there's a difference between unintended change through technological developments and direct political action which intends to change. New technology is usually created and introduced for reasons of efficiency. That's the primary aim. This efficiency may have unintended consequences on say family structures which causes a shift in their arrangement. Feminism, on the other hand, was a direct attempt to change the structure of the family. I am sure you're trying to muddy the waters here.

Rats. Foiled again.

Which family structure do feminists want, BD?

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:07pm:

The direction of change is not an accident, or a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Yes, I'm sure Corporate Whitey would agree with you.

What are you trying to say karnal?

I'm saying the direction of change is entirely an accident.

If Hitler had won the war, we'd be Nazis. Or else.

Seeing we got liberal democracy, we're Whigs and Tories.

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

I'm saying the direction of change is entirely an accident. If Hitler had won the war, we'd be Nazis. Or else. Seeing we got liberal democracy, we're Whigs and Tories.

LOL.

It's just a coincidence that almost every western tradition is being undermined by 'progressive' ie marxist thought?   

Gender roles that stood for a billion years 'naturally' became a 'social construct' almost overnight?

The institutuion of marriage, tens of thousands of years old 'naturally' was called into question?

Heritage/race that helped us to identify ourselves since tribal days 'naturally' became meaningless?  (to whites only)

Western countries, the premeinent power on the globe, started replacing the very people who built those societies with people who can hardly build shitbrick huts?

Honkies (and only honkies) 'naturally' decided to reduce themselves to a minority in their own homelands?

Bitch please. 

I'm wrong. Hitler didn't lose the war at all.

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 4:08pm:

I'm wrong. Hitler didn't lose the war at all.

Ideas never die, they just get rebadged and recycled.

What do you think happened to all the marxists?  They all saw the error of their ways and recanted? 

Quote:

What do you think happened to all the marxists?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=viewprofile;username=745E4D515E533F0

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Honky, the institutions you mention have been called to question as a result of social change. This comes about through technological change, which always follows some form of social shift - usually the result of crisis. These things always influence each other. The printing press, for example, saw in the reformation, the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, but these would not have happened without the need for Bibles. The pill precipitated a huge shift in social values: marriage, the sexual revolution, two child families, and feminism. But the pill would not have been marketed (and probably invented) without the need for workers during WWII and the subsequent participation of women in the workforce in the post-war boom. Your enemy is a straw man. He exists, but only in response to change itself. Conservatism as a philosophy also has responses to change. This is what social and political ideas are: responses to change. The current two streams, liberalism and conservatism, came about with the Whigs and Tories after a revolution, a Restoration, and an industrial revolution. Does it really matter what brand of reaction you attach yourself to? The fruits of Fascism and Stalinism were eirily similar. Both, as we know, borrowed heavily from each other. If Hitler had won the war, he would have seen a similar shift in power to the fall of the Iron Curtain in the 1980s/90s. This is because power responds to the way information is distributed. The medium is the message. The Soviets could not supress the fundamental technological - but also ontological - shifts that occurred in the global economy. And neither could many in the so-called free world. This is why you're complaining about "progressives". You find social change, and the collapse of social norms that has occurred since the 1970s, difficult to come to terms with. You blame the erosion of the institutions you mention on "progressives." The Stalinists would have blamed it on "counter-revolutionaries". Take your pick. Social change is complicated. It is never the result of one thing, but involves many interdependant factors: knowledge, power, and the way these are distributed in an economy. I'm not sure if I've given you the response you were after. I can't defend "progressives" or "leftists" or whatever you call them because I don't really know who they are. I certainly wouldn't fight against the way things are - what would be the point of that? Things are what they are. You can fight or surf. The real fight, Honky, is within. Take it or leave it.

Tommy tank, as always. Bob Brown don't surf, to coin a phrase.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 3:42pm: I'm saying the direction of change is entirely an accident. If Hitler had won the war, we'd be Nazis. Or else. Seeing we got liberal democracy, we're Whigs and Tories. LOL. It's just a coincidence that almost every western tradition is being undermined by 'progressive' ie marxist thought?    Gender roles that stood for a billion years 'naturally' became a 'social construct' almost overnight? The institutuion of marriage, tens of thousands of years old 'naturally' was called into question? Heritage/race that helped us to identify ourselves since tribal days 'naturally' became meaningless?  (to whites only) Western countries, the premeinent power on the globe, started replacing the very people who built those societies with people who can hardly build shitbrick huts? Honkies (and only honkies) 'naturally' decided to reduce themselves to a minority in their own homelands? Bitch please.

If western culture is in decline - its solely because of bigoted political/corporate parasites like you and the rest of the social engineering political class and their genius economic theories.. 8-)

Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-)

The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-)

The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-)

Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-)

The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-)

Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-)

Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-)

Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-)

It actually makes sense that the greatest fear of a gigantic loser like Corporate_Whitey is social darwinism. Who would be the first to the wall if such an ethos prevailed?

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:10pm:

It actually makes sense that the greatest fear of a gigantic loser like Corporate_Whitey is social darwinism. Who would be the first to the wall if such an ethos prevailed?

Bring it on Bitch - Bring it on. 8-) ::)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:20pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:10pm: It actually makes sense that the greatest fear of a gigantic loser like Corporate_Whitey is social darwinism. Who would be the first to the wall if such an ethos prevailed? Bring it on Bitch - Bring it on. 8-) ::)

I'd suggest we take this outside but firstly I would have to widen your front door several inches.

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:07pm:

Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-)

Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?)

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-) Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?)

Do you support this institution, which demands Papal like subservience of will to its rule? 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:22pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-) Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?) Do you support this institution, which demands Papal like subservience of will to its rule? 8-)

Does not giving a sh1t count as support?

Corporate_Whitey demands papal like subservience of other people to finance his pension, under threat of imprisonment for tax evasion.

... wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:27pm: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:22pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-) Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?) Do you support this institution, which demands Papal like subservience of will to its rule? 8-) Does not giving a sh1t count as support?

There you go - you are not furthering the destructive infliction of this parasitical institution on Western civilization congrats, you just managed to answer your own question - there is a clever little boy. ::) ;D

you calling others parasites is a bit rich fatty

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:29pm:

Corporate_Whitey demands papal like subservience of other people to finance his pension, under threat of imprisonment for tax evasion.

I just demand you stop corruptly using political and economic power in an organized manner in the same manner the papacy did throughout history to exclude me from the economy.   Stop trying to invent reasons to exclude me that are not real or true.  I also demand massive compensation for the states policy agenda of economic excommunication and social persecution of decent hard working fit healthy people like me they have destroyed. 8-)

LOL

LOL 8-)

LOL

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

you calling others parasites is a bit rich fatty

Not when its you - Papist, Nazi, Communist, Fascist, Royalist, Dictator, Control Freak by another ideological facade. 8-)

LOL

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:32pm: you calling others parasites is a bit rich fatty Not when its you - Papist, Nazi, Communist, Fascist, Royalist, Dictator, Control Freak by another ideological facade. 8-)

yes, i'm a commie nazi

LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D

My will is sovereign over all of the lies of the Political class...

LoL ;D ;D ;D

what about your own lies?

Looks like it's LOL-ing time again.


LOL  ;D

I am Lord over your ideology, your religion, your pope, your CEO, your doctrine and your lies.  They are worthess to me. 8-) ;D ;D ;D 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

I am Lord over your ideology, your religion, your pope, your CEO, your doctrine and your lies.  They are worthess to me. 8-) ;D ;D ;D 8-)

but not your own appetite, it seems odd that somebody who emphasises so frequently how 'in control' over himself he is cannot control his own hunger..

The man of sin cannot enter the heavenly Tabernacle or approach the inner chambers where sitteth the king in heavenly glory.  Even now he is coming on the clouds... :D ;D :D

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:47pm: I am Lord over your ideology, your religion, your pope, your CEO, your doctrine and your lies.  They are worthess to me. 8-) ;D ;D ;D 8-) but not your own appetite, it seems odd that somebody who emphasises so frequently how 'in control' over himself he is cannot control his own hunger..

Your father was a liar and a murderer before the foundation of the world and you are the son of serpents. 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:28pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:27pm: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:22pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-) Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?) Do you support this institution, which demands Papal like subservience of will to its rule? 8-) Does not giving a sh1t count as support? There you go - you are not furthering the destructive infliction of this parasitical institution on Western civilization congrats, you just managed to answer your own question - there is a clever little boy. ::) ;D

A very good point. You didn't mention the institutions of the aristocracy and the papacy, Honky. You're not too fond of slavery either. Or hunter gatherers.

So you're saying that some institutions are worth preserving and others you don't give a sh!t about.

Good to know we can pick and choose instead of sticking to the past billion years. Still, how is this any different to the leftists?

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 2:44pm: Karnal, there's a difference between unintended change through technological developments and direct political action which intends to change. New technology is usually created and introduced for reasons of efficiency. That's the primary aim. This efficiency may have unintended consequences on say family structures which causes a shift in their arrangement. Feminism, on the other hand, was a direct attempt to change the structure of the family. I am sure you're trying to muddy the waters here. Rats. Foiled again. Which family structure do feminists want, BD?

Now, now, I am sure you're aware of what the feminists advocated.
But a brief overview ...
The 2nd wave looks to equal share of work between husband and wife (or "partner," as some feminists don't like the term "wife"), both in the household and out in the world of employment. This rearranges the previous set up of man as bread winner and woman as child-rearer and housekeeper.
The 3rd wave tries to claim, with more invective, man is an oppressor and what ever he does is evil blah blah blah. This results in emasculated men. Usually what results is a family without a father figure to give the child structure. The child ends up rowdy and undisciplined.

Karnal wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:32pm: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:28pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:27pm: ... wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:22pm: corporate_whitey wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Hitler was the Greatest enemy of Western Civilization who ever lived. 8-) The Government and the Church is the Greatest Enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The aristocracy is te greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Greed is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed.  8-) The Royal Family is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Racism is the greatest enemy of western civilization that has ever existed. 8-) Social Darwinism and other forms of ideological extremism is the greatest enemy of western civilization. 8-) Take your pick - which of these if not all are you guilty of? 8-) Erm...I'm guilty of the royal family(?) Do you support this institution, which demands Papal like subservience of will to its rule? 8-) Does not giving a sh1t count as support? There you go - you are not furthering the destructive infliction of this parasitical institution on Western civilization congrats, you just managed to answer your own question - there is a clever little boy. ::) ;D A very good point. You didn't mention the institutions of the aristocracy and the papacy, Honky. You're not too fond of slavery either. Or hunter gatherers. So you're saying that some institutions are worth preserving and others you don't give a sh!t about. Good to know we can pick and choose instead of sticking to the past billion years. Still, how is this any different to the leftists?

I'm "against" hunter-gatherers now?

That's a new one.   ::)

True. You're only against hunter gatherers when they're black. The white ones are probably worth preserving.

Also, I notice you've missed class - the main thing the "progressives" have struggled against. You know, race, gender, class...

Are you seeking a return to a social structure where 80% of the population are owned as serfs?

Is this the sort of tabla rasa reductionalism you're so angry about?




 

Quote:

The 3rd wave tries to claim, with more invective, man is an oppressor and what ever he does is evil blah blah blah. This results in emasculated men.

How?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

Quote: The 3rd wave tries to claim, with more invective, man is an oppressor and what ever he does is evil blah blah blah. This results in emasculated men. How?

Can I say you're smug and privileged? Or does that only work when feminists say it?

That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug.

How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:27pm:

That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time.

It stung like seeing you madly chucking your underwear all over the place. That is to say, it startled.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

It's a belief that everyone else owes them a living

Their sense of social equality is nothing more than envy and tendencies to steal what is not theirs

Soren wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:33pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time.  It stung like seeing you madly chucking your underwear all over the place. That is to say, it startled.

Have you been peeking in my windows?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 10:27pm:

That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men?

Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed.

So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself.

Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation.
Pride, self-confidence = masculine.

Pride cometh before a fall - there is no redemption for a savage such as yourself, your words damn your soul, you desecrate society and pollute it with your evil presence. 8-)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:13pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men? Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed. So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself. Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation. Pride, self-confidence = masculine.

I think that's the biggest load of crap I've seen you write here.

Bravo.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:13pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men? Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed. So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself. Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation. Pride, self-confidence = masculine. I think that's the biggest load of crap I've seen you write here. Bravo.

It's hard to argue against that.

As a man, I'm embarrassed by that post.

Quote:

As a man, I'm embarrassed by that post.

Probably because, unlike Bolshie, you don't feel the need to hang on white knuckled to arrogance to feel a  false sense of masculinity. He's terrified of women - it'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Well, it does explain the underpants being thrown all over the place.

Thanks for a good laugh, old boy. I owe you one.

Personally, I can't understand the progressives doing away with the scold's bridle and the iron maiden. I guess they must have felt a little emasculated that day. I know how it feels sometimes.

No excuse, I know, but still. These leftists want us all getting about in classless, racially neutral, unisex undergarments, it's unbelievable.

It's time we stood up for what's right. Like decent ladies.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:20pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:13pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men? Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed. So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself. Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation. Pride, self-confidence = masculine. I think that's the biggest load of crap I've seen you write here. Bravo. It's hard to argue against that. As a man, I'm embarrassed by that post.

True. As much as we despise the progressives, we can at least be grateful for their relentless struggle to liberalise the act of sodomy.

How else would underprivalleged people like Honkie, Bolshie, Imperium and I get any?

It's not like the ladies are putting out after they became all liberated, now is it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 12:26am:

It's not like the ladies are putting out after they became all liberated, now is it.

You're not picking up the right women.

I have no problem 'drilling for oil on the moon' with most ladies I meet.

;)

speak for yourself karnal. i got hos in fifty zip codes.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 12:26am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:23pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:20pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:13pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men? Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed.So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself. Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation. Pride, self-confidence = masculine. I think that's the biggest load of crap I've seen you write here. Bravo. It's hard to argue against that. As a man, I'm embarrassed by that post. True. As much as we despise the progressives, we can at least be grateful for their relentless struggle to liberalise the act of sodomy. How else would underprivalleged people like Honkie, Bolshie, Imperium and I get any? It's not like the ladies are putting out after they became all liberated, now is it.

hey desperados, 
you are a sad bunch aren't you.??
I think Bolshie stands for all you hopeless loons who never get it.

I mean... if Bolshie has ever had close relations with a woman, I'd be truly amazed.

Sounds like fantasy, of a socio-psycho bent to me.
Or, he's an habitual abuser.  One or the other. So sociobolshie, where do you get such mindless drivel from?. Are you interested in News?  No, guessnot, from your comments about equal op, equal pay.

You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight. 8-)
Totally unacceptable BullshitDistributor. :P 8-)

I don't think you get it, Jalane. Equality of opportunity is the problem here. Equality is a leftist conspiracy to bring everyone down to their level.

You know, blacks, women, the lower orders and subhumans.

Women and blacks have their place, and this is the way it was designed a billion years ago. I think God thought it up, I'm not sure. Honky hasn't mentioned God yet. That's Yadda's area of expertise.

Bolshie's the spokesperson on gender studies.

Every time a woman succeeds, Bolshie loses a bit of masculinity. He's only whining now because he's started to go into a deficit and is having symptoms of PMS.

It is telling that you can't defend your ideology without lying.

Perhaps thats a good sign it shouldn't be defended? 

No argument from anyone, just abuse. Oh well, that's what feminism does.
Snide comments about my personal life only sidestep the issue. (I am married btw). See, this is an old hat, anyone who dares to question the radical orthodoxy of feminism is instantly subjected to derogatory slogans. Why debate when abuse works so well I s'pose.

So does anyone actually want to debate the point, or am I to receive just more personal abuse, which seems to be the dominant mode of debate in feminism?

Quote:

jalane wrote You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight.

So for questioning the orthodoxy of feminism I need to be killed. Nice. This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality.

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

It is telling that you can't defend your ideology without lying.

It's hardly lying, Honky, it's just coming up with a respectable order of words. "The order of things", "the existing structure" and "the way things are". You can't argue with that.

It's probably better to keep facts and examples out of it. The leftists have brainwashed the blacks, women and lower classes so thoroughly that none of them will return to the billion year old natural order you describe without a few tantrums along the way.

Best stick to a few politically correct statements of values and keep the focus on the ineptitude of the leftists. Never trust the lower orders to know what's good for them.

Hae you thought of joining Matty's campaign? 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality.

That's it, Bolshie. These fascists refuse to listen to the benefits of imposing inequality.

They just don't get it.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 11:16am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality. That's it, Bolshie. These fascists refuse to listen to the benefits of imposing inequality. They just don't get it.

Inequality occurs naturally.
People have different skills and talents and some people will nurture those skills and talents and others won't.
Equality needs the executive branch of government to impose its will onto others.

That's right, Bolshie. The problem is we've now got the weaker sex and the tinted races skilling up and competing with us. It's just not fair.

Things were a lot better when the government imposed its will and refused to let them in.

Now now, no need to put words in my mouth.
I have expressed before I believe in equality of opportunity.
Unfortunately, the preachers of equality don't like inequality of outcome.

if people who say they "believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" were serious about it they'd advocate the state taking children away from their parents and rigorously regulating the peer groups of children, as well as eugenics

i dont care about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, especially as often the former causes massive sacrifices of other things that matter

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Quote: jalane wrote You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight. So for questioning the orthodoxy of feminism I need to be killed. Nice. This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality.

Nah...  he didn't die.. He JUST LEARNT A LITTLE RESPECT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D 8-) for his betters.  Forget equality.....  as some one posted earlier --- For Women to seek equality with Men shows a lack of ambition.. or something.

But really, what we need to do is punish all white males for being successful. Everyone knows that they're all evil anyway. The good people are the women and non-European people who haven't been corrupted by the evil white man. Women and non-whites are pure and innocent. Nature has endowed only them with higher standards of morality and given them a divine twinkle in their eye.

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: Quote: jalane wrote You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight. So for questioning the orthodoxy of feminism I need to be killed. Nice. This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality. Nah...  he didn't die.. He JUST LEARNT A LITTLE RESPECT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D 8-) for his betters.  Forget equality.....  as some one posted earlier --- For Women to seek equality with Men shows a lack of ambition.. or something.

Incoherent rambling.

What are you trying to say?

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

if people who say they "believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" were serious about it they'd advocate the state taking children away from their parents and rigorously regulating the peer groups of children, as well as eugenics i dont care about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome, especially as often the former causes massive sacrifices of other things that matter

Equality of opportunity means basically that anyone regardless of race or gender can apply for a position.
Whether they'll get the position will depend on their skills though.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 2:27pm:

Now now, no need to put words in my mouth. I have expressed before I believe in equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, the preachers of equality don't like inequality of outcome.

Equality Of Opportunity? Good heavens, that's a progressive thing. That's the leftists in a nutshell - imposing equality on everyone, when clearly the natural - and right - human impulse is to descriminate against racially different, inferior sub-species and sexes, the way it's been happening for a billion years.

I'm really confused now, Bolshie. Don't we need INequality of opportunity?

toilet thread

Would you like to add anything, Imperium? You've been rather quiet.

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”.

Funny.
The leftist ideology for most would be to question and examine the order of things which exist. If there is a problem with that order then there would be a push by the left to fix that or bring attention to it.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 4:39pm: Quote: A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. Funny. The leftist ideology for most would be to question and examine the order of things which exist. If there is a problem with that order then there would be a push by the left to fix that or bring attention to it.

That is what the left of any given era try to do.  But todays left is predicated on a faulty theory.  The very foundations are rotten, so anythign you build on them is doomed to fail.

So, to summarise, leftist ideology seeks to wage a war on the natural order of things that have existed for a billion years.

Not the hydrogen atom or gravity, but important things like racialism, marriage and gender roles which were designed by nature.

Not God-ordained things like the divine right of kings, the infallibility of the church, or the right of the landed aristocracy to own their subjects and their labour - these things don't count.

What matters is the inherent difference between the races and the sexes. This is important because the leftists pretend these things don't exist. If the leftists just agreed how important they are, we could all get together and have a big laugh about it all.

First, of course, we would have to do away with all the silly talk of inclusion and equality, and re-establish segregation and division. We would need to put Ladies Lounges back in the pubs and send the blacks back to their squalid humpies down by the river - if a mining company doesn't need the space for business.

This is the way it's always been, so it's important that we agree to make things right. We should stop pretending that blacks, coloureds, women and subnormals have anything to offer, or that they could ever be equal to the white man (ha!). We should stop pretending to consult with them, let them make decisions for themselves and all that other leftist PC nonsense. 

I hope I've got this right. Please feel free to add anything if I've left it out.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 2:33pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 2:30pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: Quote: jalane wrote You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight. So for questioning the orthodoxy of feminism I need to be killed. Nice. This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality. Nah...  he didn't die.. He JUST LEARNT A LITTLE RESPECT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D 8-) for his betters.  Forget equality.....  as some one posted earlier --- For Women to seek equality with Men shows a lack of ambition.. or something. Incoherent rambling. What are you trying to say?

I said it. You can't understand?? :-? :-? 8-)

I wrote a much longer screed which once again mysteriously disappeared due to 'intermitent connection problems'. Seems to happen quite frequently, especially when replying at length.. to certain posters.
So I won't bother, in future, to reply at any length.

Nice one Karnal.
At least I can appreciate your humor.!! :)

Humour?

;) ;) - yep.. don't they say 'sarcasm is the lowest form of humor?'.

I enjoyed your post immensely,  ;D

You say humour I say humor..let's call the whole thing off.!!! ;D

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 6:43pm:

So, to summarise, leftist ideology seeks to wage a war on the natural order of things that have existed for a billion years. Not the hydrogen atom or gravity, but important things like racialism, marriage and gender roles which were designed by nature. Not God-ordained things like the divine right of kings, the infallibility of the church, or the right of the landed aristocracy to own their subjects and their labour - these things don't count. What matters is the inherent difference between the races and the sexes. This is important because the leftists pretend these things don't exist. If the leftists just agreed how important they are, we could all get together and have a big laugh about it all. First, of course, we would have to do away with all the silly talk of inclusion and equality, and re-establish segregation and division. We would need to put Ladies Lounges back in the pubs and send the blacks back to their squalid humpies down by the river - if a mining company doesn't need the space for business. This is the way it's always been, so it's important that we agree to make things right. We should stop pretending that blacks, coloureds, women and subnormals have anything to offer, or that they could ever be equal to the white man (ha!). We should stop pretending to consult with them, let them make decisions for themselves and all that other leftist PC nonsense.  I hope I've got this right. Please feel free to add anything if I've left out.

Merit.

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 6:48pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 2:33pm: Emma wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 2:30pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: Quote: jalane wrote You sound a lot like a 'creep'  I knew who needed a couple of bullets to get his head straight. So for questioning the orthodoxy of feminism I need to be killed. Nice. This just goes to show the fascist tendencies that lie beneath the drive to impose equality. Nah...  he didn't die.. He JUST LEARNT A LITTLE RESPECT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D 8-) for his betters.  Forget equality.....  as some one posted earlier --- For Women to seek equality with Men shows a lack of ambition.. or something. Incoherent rambling. What are you trying to say? I said it. You can't understand?? :-? :-? 8-) I wrote a much longer screed which once again mysteriously disappeared due to 'intermitent connection problems'. Seems to happen quite frequently, especially when replying at length.. to certain posters. So I won't bother, in future, to reply at any length.

Well, you could try presenting an argument of some description instead of resorting to personal abuse. Raw emotion just doesn't cut it.

Uncle Meat wrote on Feb 10^th, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:20pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 11:13pm: Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 10th, 2012 at 10:27pm: That must have stung for you to bring it up after all this time. I am privileged, I don't think I'm smug. How do womens claims of male oppression emasculate men? Once the 3rd wave hits equality is already in full swing. But the 3rd wavers weren't happy with that, they had to keep lambasting men where ever they felt oppression existed, even though evidence of oppression rarely existed. So even though equality of opportunity and equal pay etc exists, there is still the claim that women are oppressed. So guilt is (further) used as a tool to make men feel bad for being successful, rich, powerful: They must then exhibit sorrow for being outgoing and driven to succeed. They must wallow in self-pity and feel shame every time he exerts himself. Self-pity, self-shame = emasculation. Pride, self-confidence = masculine. I think that's the biggest load of crap I've seen you write here. Bravo. It's hard to argue against that. As a man, I'm embarrassed by that post.

Sexist. There's no such thing as men or women, only culturally inscribed practices.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 6:43pm: So, to summarise, leftist ideology seeks to wage a war on the natural order of things that have existed for a billion years. Not the hydrogen atom or gravity, but important things like racialism, marriage and gender roles which were designed by nature. Not God-ordained things like the divine right of kings, the infallibility of the church, or the right of the landed aristocracy to own their subjects and their labour - these things don't count. What matters is the inherent difference between the races and the sexes. This is important because the leftists pretend these things don't exist. If the leftists just agreed how important they are, we could all get together and have a big laugh about it all. First, of course, we would have to do away with all the silly talk of inclusion and equality, and re-establish segregation and division. We would need to put Ladies Lounges back in the pubs and send the blacks back to their squalid humpies down by the river - if a mining company doesn't need the space for business. This is the way it's always been, so it's important that we agree to make things right. We should stop pretending that blacks, coloureds, women and subnormals have anything to offer, or that they could ever be equal to the white man (ha!). We should stop pretending to consult with them, let them make decisions for themselves and all that other leftist PC nonsense.  I hope I've got this right. Please feel free to add anything if I've left out. Merit.

Thanks, old boy. Merit too. If women, coloureds, blacks, subnormals or homosexuals want to become dentists or fork-lift drivers or Pakistani-relations consultants, they should have the right qualifications.

Good point.

"Well, you could try presenting an argument of some description instead of resorting to personal abuse. Raw emotion just doesn't cut it." - Quote BD


Could say the same for you.
I am saying that your posts are ALSO personal attacks,  against women, who contribute to this forum.
You make declarations - based on YOUR views. YOUR opinions.
Your declarations are just as emotional as mine. :)

I love how people with obviously blunt and stunted emotional capabilities dismiss anyone who shows them - and on subjects that particularly call for an emotional response.

Emotion doesn't make an argument invalid.

Righties and progressives sometimes get a bit sensitive. It's okay to slur the blacks, coloureds, subnormals and women - we're superior to them.

Don't feel insulted if you're black, coloured, subnormal or subhuman, it's just a fact.

I'm sorry - I should have learnt by now.

Black people and women and (thank God I dodged this bullet) black women have no right to be offended.

That's reserved for soft, pinky coloured men with fat fingers.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:16pm:

Righties and progressives sometimes get a bit sensitive. It's okay to slur the blacks, coloureds, subnormals and women - we're superior to them. Don't feel insulted if you're black, coloured, subnormal or subhuman, it's just a fact.

Feel insulted if you have demonstrated some merit.

Being tinted, having a pussy or being an arse-fancier is not a merit. Nor is group membership of any kind. i

All I want is the freedom to judge by content of character.  Can't do that with the lefty patrol around - look at how they carry on attributing criticism of Gillard to 'sexism'. So long as she belongs to a minority protected group, any and all criticism becomes mere bigotry. 

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther kIng.  (i think he was black!)

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:18pm:

I'm sorry - I should have learnt by now. Black people and women and (thank God I dodged this bullet) black women have no right to be offended. That's reserved for soft, pinky coloured men with fat fingers.

Black women? They're the most spoilt species in the history of the human race. Give them a land mine injury, a history of "abuse" and - that most overused excuse for being weak - PTSD; and they get an automatic government grant to do whatever they want.

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

.  Can't do that with the lefty patrol around - look at how they carry on attributing criticism of Gillard to 'sexism'. So long as she belongs to a minority protected group, any and all criticism becomes mere bigotry.

That's not true, Wesley.

It's the manner in which she is criticised that is the problem - the terminology that is used to put her down and it's been that way since the day she became PM.  What male politician has his fertility questioned?

... wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

All I want is the freedom to judge by content of character.

Then why is race so important?

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

... wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:43pm: All I want is the freedom to judge by content of character.  Then why is race so important?

It is not important if there is merit.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:56pm: ... wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:43pm: All I want is the freedom to judge by content of character.  Then why is race so important? It is not important if there is merit.

Merit? Are you running for the the Duke of Edinburgh Award, old boy?

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:16pm: Righties and progressives sometimes get a bit sensitive. It's okay to slur the blacks, coloureds, subnormals and women - we're superior to them. Don't feel insulted if you're black, coloured, subnormal or subhuman, it's just a fact. Feel insulted if you have demonstrated some merit. Being tinted, having a pussy or being an arse-fancier is not a merit. Nor is group membership of any kind.

What about membership of the white race (culture)? I'm sure I remember something about pride and looking after your own kind and honouring all the wonderful grand achievements in this marvellous sub-species.

Of course, I might have been getting it mixed up with the Pakistani race. Honky's not Pakistani, is he? I distinctly remember him saying he'd never do it with anyone other than his own kind - not even a bit of fun with a prostitute.

I'm not entirely certain, but there's a technical reason for it. I think it's to do with dilution of the blood or something like that.

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

... wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:43pm: All I want is the freedom to judge by content of character.  Then why is race so important?

Mostly just because it's taboo. 

Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 9:37pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:30pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:16pm: Righties and progressives sometimes get a bit sensitive. It's okay to slur the blacks, coloureds, subnormals and women - we're superior to them. Don't feel insulted if you're black, coloured, subnormal or subhuman, it's just a fact. Feel insulted if you have demonstrated some merit. Being tinted, having a pussy or being an arse-fancier is not a merit. Nor is group membership of any kind. What about membership of the white race (culture)? I'm sure I remember something about pride and looking after your own kind and honouring all the wonderful grand achievements in this marvellous sub-species. Of course, I might have been getting it mixed up with the Pakistani race. Honky's not Pakistani, is he? I distinctly remember him saying he'd never do it with anyone other than his own kind - not even a bit of fun with a prostitute. I'm not entirely certain, but there's a technical reason for it. I think it's to do with dilution of the blood or something like that.

You distinctly remember wrong. 

Why does every single post of yours have to include lies?  every single one.  You are worse than stupid - you are terminally dishonest.   >:(

Lies? Not at all. Now what was the discussion called? Help me out on this one, Honky.

Soren wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 8:16pm: Righties and progressives sometimes get a bit sensitive. It's okay to slur the blacks, coloureds, subnormals and women - we're superior to them. Don't feel insulted if you're black, coloured, subnormal or subhuman, it's just a fact. Feel insulted if you have demonstrated some merit. Being tinted, having a pussy or being an arse-fancier is not a merit. Nor is group membership of any kind.

Neither is being a male- of any colour or persuasion.  Yet it seems men feel they are meritorious, just because they are men. AND...they don't even need to be white. !!


Karnal wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

Posted by: Karnal   Posted on: Today at 8:46pm Annie Anthrax wrote Today at 8:18pm: I'm sorry - I should have learnt by now. Black people and women and (thank God I dodged this bullet) black women have no right to be offended. That's reserved for soft, pinky coloured men with fat fingers. [b]Black women? They're the most spoilt species in the history of the human race. Give them a land mine injury, a history of "abuse" and - that most overused excuse for being weak - PTSD; and they get an automatic government grant to do whatever they want. [/b]

Karnal, you are truly a sicko.... again ...you are sick.. 'cos you might be pretending to believe this, but I KNOW YOU DO.!!

You can join BD as sociopsycho ARSEHOLE   .....  See you also sound like the 'creep' that got a taste of his own medicine.

The creep that .....raped his part-aboriginal wife, whilst strangling her to death... and then continued, declaring......   well I think you know what he said as his justification ......didn't save him from sentencing to 11 yrs  MAX SECURITY.

See if you don't live in the real world,  you have no right to condemn or criticise.!!!

BUT it doesn't stop you from being FREAKY creeps.

Oh bye the bye - he also used his young pre-school children to break in to his estranged wife's home.....1 yr after she left him because of his paranoid behaviour, so he could rape and strangle her to death.

MEN DO do these things.......because THEY THINK THEY ARE ENTITLED.!!!

YOU ARE NOT.!!!!!!!
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

AND  .. :(
he also said ..... he really wished he had been born a black whore, 'cos he would have cleaned up. They get everything their way the slits.  I saw a black slit after leaving the train at .... and I wanted to ....the slit. Too many people around.!!

YOU AGREE WITH THAT? DO YOU Sociopsycho arsesholes???

No ...I don't think you are that depraved..(altho IT ISN'T IMPOSSIBLE given 20% odd of the pop. is considered to be of this type) .....  but in all seriousness..... this 'discussion'  - denigrating efforts to accord fair treatment to us all is shite. It inspires more of the same.


YOU can defend your SEX if you choose... I'll add nothing further. :(

Come on, Honky. Where's the post where you said you wouldn't even do a Thai prostitute because she's an inferior sub-species?

I tried sticking up for them and you called me a feminist.

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 9:59pm:

Karnal, you are truly a sicko.... again ...you are sick.. 'cos you might be pretending to believe this, but I KNOW YOU DO.!!

That's right, love. The one thing worse than black women are all those dying black kids. How come they never show starving white kids? That's racism right there.

You think the only people getting abused are women? You've got no idea what I have to listen to every day.

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 7:47pm:

"Well, you could try presenting an argument of some description instead of resorting to personal abuse. Raw emotion just doesn't cut it." - Quote BD Could say the same for you. I am saying that your posts are ALSO personal attacks,  against women, who contribute to this forum. You make declarations - based on YOUR views. YOUR opinions. Your declarations are just as emotional as mine. :)

Still got nothing I see.
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Annie Anthrax wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 8:08pm:

I love how people with obviously blunt and stunted emotional capabilities dismiss anyone who shows them - and on subjects that particularly call for an emotional response. Emotion doesn't make an argument invalid.

But let me guess, calling someone smug or privileged is a valid argument, right? (Only if you're a feminist of course).

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 7:47pm: "Well, you could try presenting an argument of some description instead of resorting to personal abuse. Raw emotion just doesn't cut it." - Quote BD Could say the same for you. I am saying that your posts are ALSO personal attacks,  against women, who contribute to this forum. You make declarations - based on YOUR views. YOUR opinions. Your declarations are just as emotional as mine. :) Still got nothing I see. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Well I'll be darned.!! Connection probs again....so I looked it up in my Dictionary. Yeah- paper.

So what? now you say obliquely, that your posts aren't designed to further intolerance and hate? No? they're meant to focus the reader on the anomalies and falsehoods of the argument you pretend to support??   ::)
Spare us your deviousness. Try saying what you mean.

Emma wrote on Feb 11^th, 2012 at 11:34pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 10:53pm: Emma wrote on Feb 11th, 2012 at 7:47pm: "Well, you could try presenting an argument of some description instead of resorting to personal abuse. Raw emotion just doesn't cut it." - Quote BD Could say the same for you. I am saying that your posts are ALSO personal attacks,  against women, who contribute to this forum. You make declarations - based on YOUR views. YOUR opinions. Your declarations are just as emotional as mine. :) Still got nothing I see. Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic Well I'll be darned.!! Connection probs again....so I looked it up in my Dictionary. Yeah- paper. So what? now you say obliquely, that your posts aren't designed to further intolerance and hate? No? they're meant to focus the reader on the anomalies and falsehoods of the argument you pretend to support??   ::) Spare us your deviousness. Try saying what you mean.

I've already stated what I mean.
I'll repeat it again.
Equality is a doctrine that is born of resentment toward the successful. Forget your armchair morality about imposing guilt on successful people and start making practical steps toward what it is you want to achieve. This is what successful people do in all disciplines, whether it's music, sport, business, literary endeavours or any other arena.
Sitting around whingeing and griping about how oppressed you are isn't going to get you anywhere. This is where feminist doctrines are woefully inept at actually helping people. They whine about oppressive power structures but never give anyone any practical tips on how to achieve their dreams. It's all about imposing guilt.

You'e been reading all that feminist claptrap, have you, Bolshie? All that nonsense about child development and parenting and agrarian reform and food security and microfinancing and human resources and share ownership and board membership and government funding and NGOs and community participation and crop cultivation and all of it a big, jealous gripe against men and their dicks.

I know you went to uni, son, but there's no reason to flaunt it.

Equality is a doctrine that is born of resentment toward the successful. Forget your armchair morality about imposing guilt on successful people and start making practical steps toward what it is you want to achieve. This is what successful people do in all disciplines, whether it's music, sport, business, literary endeavours or any other arena.
Sitting around whingeing and griping about how oppressed you are isn't going to get you anywhere. This is where feminist doctrines are woefully inept at actually helping people. They whine about oppressive power structures but never give anyone any practical tips on how to achieve their dreams. It's all about imposing guilt.


What fallacious views you spew....... I have been assisted by real caring people - male and female- in law, in society. 

Hope you DO feel guilty----  you ought to. Face the Facts Jack.

Obviously you see yourself as a successful white male - who has been disadvantaged, unfairly, by the raising of womens' status in the workplace,  through dint of their sheer HARD WORK. 

Poor baby. Mummy has turned.!!! ;D

Don't be like that, love. It's okay to have your say but there's no reason to get into a tiz about it. Bolshie's already said he doesn't get turned on by the dyke ballbuster type, so it might be best to give someone else a stab.

Actually, Soren might be up for it if you're interested. I've heard he pays quite well too.

as for what you see Karnal , every day......I do have a pretty fair idea, even tho I don't know what you do. I KNOW women aren't the only abused.  BUT THATS WHERE IT STARTS.

The only obvious inference I can draw from your words is that you are.....  a policeman, a counsellor, or a welfare worker.  But with a serious need to see the 'other side'.You know..!!  objectivity, reason, refutation of dogma, an open mind, an open heart.

AND don't call me love.
Soren can't take it .... he's an Eskimo. too hot for him/
BD is as much a ......as you are.... I'm not in a tiz DICK, this is how I am.

And, I for one, don't consider money to have any value at all, any substance at all, in this issue.
Just another typical put-down of women who will, AND DO, stand up for their rights as human beings.  Hang your head in shame fool.

of course I'm giving you the benefit of doubt by such inference....

You could be a scum-sucking CEO for all I know ...or care.
What I DO KNOW ...is you are a classic under-acheiving whinger, who blames everyone, and everything for their own fallibility.
But particularly, its apparent, women.!!

What a wally.!!! 8-)

wow.

:o

... wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:05am:

wow. :o

You started it.

Jalane's posts are exactly what I expected. All abuse and no reasoned position.

She just digs herself deeper with each post.

You're pretty good at that yourself, Bolshie.

How so?

... wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Contradict my post about arguing? I can't. Anyway, I'm a hopeless arguer. I always end up agreeing. So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?

Of course not. 



Quote:

What's the matter with the structure of the world which presently exists?  It's not perfect, but nor does it deserve to have war waged on it.

If you knock down a dilapidated old house to build a new one is that a war against housing? Entropy happens, all systems fall into corruption and need renewal from time to time. I'm sick of saying this, but capitalism was a good idea at the time (1602). The point was to concentrate money into big bundles for use in big projects. Like the board game that emulates it MONOPOLYtm, that process inevitably has an end game. That point has been reached and constantly deferred many times. It has created a totally unbalanced world economy and a situation where every country owes money. 'Securities' are still being sold despite an underlying two quadrillion dollars worth of derivative trades making a mockery of book-keeping and creating the ongoing Global Financial Crisis. And some plonkers keep asking "what's wrong with the system" Durrrhhh.

Nobody I relate to wants a 'war'. Wars are stupid and destructive, even as analogy. There's a limit to repair work as an effective means of keeping a structure together. Don't pull down the old house before the new one is constructed; but for gods sake it's time we started on a new building. 

well said Grey. :)

Emma wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

well said Grey. :)

And whole-heartedly seconded.

Very true, Grey. We've been rattling on about the fundamental importance of skin colour and the emasculation of the old boys that we forgot the real game: the economy.

I don't even think the knuckleheads will have a problem with what you've said. Mind you, with the exception of Matty, they do have very low attention spans.

Personally, I think it would be nice if the so-called progressives could pry themselves away from identity politics and back to the economy, but the knuckleheads keep distracting them. Piers, Gerard, Bolt et al do it deliberately, I'm sure.  Howard - and now Abbott - are masters at this game, but Howard lived in much more sunny times.

Of course, the blacks had the technology of the stick, so we're behind the eight ball right there.

If the supermarkets run out of food, we'll be rather stuck.

Grey wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:44pm:

... wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:13pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 9th, 2012 at 5:07pm: Contradict my post about arguing? I can't. Anyway, I'm a hopeless arguer. I always end up agreeing. So you'd agree that A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists”. adequately sums up progressive goals?  Of course not.  Quote:   What's the matter with the structure of the world which presently exists?  It's not perfect, but nor does it deserve to have war waged on it. If you knock down a dilapidated old house to build a new one is that a war against housing? Entropy happens, all systems fall into corruption and need renewal from time to time. I'm sick of saying this, but capitalism was a good idea at the time (1602). The point was to concentrate money into big bundles for use in big projects. Like the board game that emulates it MONOPOLYtm, that process inevitably has an end game. That point has been reached and constantly deferred many times. It has created a totally unbalanced world economy and a situation where every country owes money. 'Securities' are still being sold despite an underlying two quadrillion dollars worth of derivative trades making a mockery of book-keeping and creating the ongoing Global Financial Crisis. And some plonkers keep asking "what's wrong with the system" Durrrhhh. Nobody I relate to wants a 'war'. Wars are stupid and destructive, even as analogy. There's a limit to repair work as an effective means of keeping a structure together. Don't pull down the old house before the new one is constructed; but for gods sake it's time we started on a new building.

'Snot just capitalism they were waging war on though.  gender roles, marriage, tribal identity etc are all above capitalism - they are the foundation of humanity.  Hunter gatherers had well known gender roles well before "capitalist o-pression".  If it's a war on capitalism you want, go for it, but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
It also helps to start buildign a new "house" with solid foundations.  The premise of equality is unattainable.  ZSome semblance of it may be possible, but only when forced with massive state power. 

I'd rather have freedom thanks.

Honkers, why make such negative declarations?.

The premise of equality is unattainable.

I fully understand that humans are mired in their own shxt, whoever they are...like you EG...
but thats not to say it should or will remain that way.   It is about whether we have the Will to overcome our sordid sad and vicious past.  As long as people smear other people because of their race, gender, creed.. or passivity/aggression... it will certainly be difficult...  but not impossible, or unattainable.  See I still hope humans may redeem themselves before they disappear.

Equality... in my book = fairness./   Not 'one size fits all'. :)

Emma wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:08pm:

Honkers, why make such negative declarations?. The premise of equality is unattainable. I fully understand that humans are mired in their own shxt, whoever they are...like you EG... but thats not to say it should or will remain that way.   It is about whether we have the Will to overcome our sordid sad and vicious past.  As long as people smear other people because of their race, gender, creed.. or passivity/aggression... it will certainly be difficult...  but not impossible, or unattainable.  See I still hope humans may redeem themselves before they disappear. Equality... in my book = fairness./   Not 'one size fits all'. :)

Why? Because it IS unattainable. 

There can never be true equality between any 2 people, let alone 7 billion and counting.    

Is there no end to your sooking, Honky?

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Is there no end to your sooking, Honky?

Thats what people do here isn't it?

How about you post a thread about how you dont give a bugger about anything?  that'd be groovy man. 

Just because others do, doesn't mean you have to join the herd.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:35pm:

Just because others do, doesn't mean you have to join the herd.

The very nature of this thread is against the herd.

It still doesn't remove anything from you being one of the whiniest on here.

Definition of the "Political Class" and the Holier than thou Corporate class.


Quote:

"You stubborn people! You are heathen at heart and deaf to the truth. Must you forever resist the Holy Spirit? That's what your ancestors did, and so do you!"

8-)

Hypocrites. 8-)

Why 'War'?
Why not 'Suicide' instead?

ummmm that's interesting.

it is pertinent......   with regard to individual stands against inequity - the loaded
mind-frames of divisiveness in society make us virtually powerless..individually.
Hence the old saw 'Safety in numbers'.

Be it Racism or Sexism....we LOSE. (WE = Human Beings)  I would say that this thread is a symptom of our collective 'death wish'.

Never will peace be achieved between diverse human groupings, if we can't even relate rationally on a one-to-one relationship with the opposite gender.   :(

Without a doubt, the biggest change to the Australian workforce/economy in the past thirty years is the inclusion of women. Not only did it add to the unemployment queues and confuse a generation of economists, it required the reorganising of domestic work. New industries have arisen in child and aged care, and quite a few millionaires have been made - some bankruptcies too.

It's reshaped demography, politics and the way things are done in this country. You could say it's an evolutionary shift as big as theone where we replaced the 50000 year old technology of the stick with the shovel and the quarry.

Is it at all possible that this is the sole work of a handful of rabble rousing feminists?

Just wondering. I could probably go either way.

But Honky is right. Social change (progress) can't stop at a bit of wealth redistribution. This is because the work still needs doing when someone puts their feet up. Disposable nappies may have done away with women, their coppers and their washing lines, but assembly lines of women need to cover the dollar a day shifts over at the outsourced Huggie plant in China.

Wealth redistribution requires labour redistribution, and vice versa. Economic change facilitates social change - you can't avoid it.

Soon, all those Chinese women are going to want a bit of help too, and on it goes.

Unfortunately, the order of things has not existed for a billion years. The only thing that has existed is change, and a constant reordering of who does what. We can now do the work of millions of men with sticks in a very short time, but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.

I do admit that we do need women in the workforce, etc.

If there were female security guards at Alcatraz - they would have spotted that hole in the wall because they can see a fault in everything.
Not only this, workplace relationships personify integrity in the system. A good couple working together makes for a good example in a lot of things.

I would also like to add that Australia's need to have women constantly working to pay for a high quality of living that we feel we must live up to in regards to 'Western' standards is probably why our population hardly grows and we need boat people.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Very true, Grey. We've been rattling on about the fundamental importance of skin colour and the emasculation of the old boys that we forgot the real game: the economy.,,,,,,,,,.......................................... If the supermarkets run out of food, we'll be rather stuck.

Unfortunately, the order of things has not existed for a billion years. The only thing that has existed is change, and a constant reordering of who does what. We can now do the work of millions of men with sticks in a very short time, but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.

Ahhh sigh  Karnal.  Sad isn't it ?  that money is the real game: the economy

Now of course  MONEY makes the world go around the world go around.

So, p'haps you'd philosophically agree with 'slavery'??...  but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.


Seems to me thats what economists/banks/govt's do........  create wage slaves. Great for the overseers/owners...not so good for the rest. :-?

make that wage slaves and CONSUMERS.

the raison d'etre of LIFE.  CONSUMERISM!!!
;D ;D ;D 8-)

Emma wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:53pm:

make that wage slaves and CONSUMERS. the raison d'etre of LIFE.  CONSUMERISM!!! ;D ;D ;D 8-)

Only since we gave you pockets and a few dollars to put in them, dear.

Or, it could also be said: only since Katies opened up and you convinced Hubbie to let you get a job.

As Bolshie pointed out, these things are dialectic. You need to look at both sides to get the full picture.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:27pm:

I would also like to add that Australia's need to have women constantly working to pay for a high quality of living that we feel we must live up to in regards to 'Western' standards is probably why our population hardly grows and we need boat people.

And there you have it, Jai. But don't forget, we got today's levels of immigration BEFORE women joined the workforce en masse in the 70s and 80s. Post-war immigration was started to fill the need for labour in a booming economy.

Originally, this was intended to stop when the need for labour was filled, but we shifted to a growth economy where enough is never enough.

Hence the reason for feminism. Women were needed in jobs too - feminism's second wave, shown in all those Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies where Doris gets to work as a secretary AND be a good lover.

The question was then turned to who would wipe all the arses, carry the sticks and emasculate the knuckleheads: feminism's "third wave" as Bolshie has rightly pointed out.

Feminism, like all other schools of thought, was the result of economic change.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:

It still doesn't remove anything from you being one of the whiniest on here.

Pardon me for wanting to my son to grow up in a world where he is free to be a man.
I know it'd be hard for someone like you to understand - you know, actually caring about something? 

i dont get why life goes on is even here. then again, i dont know why i am either.

I come here to check the Light's new posts on Consciousness.

Grey wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 3:44pm:

If you knock down a dilapidated old house to build a new one is that a war against housing? Entropy happens, all systems fall into corruption and need renewal from time to time. I'm sick of saying this, but capitalism was a good idea at the time (1602). The point was to concentrate money into big bundles for use in big projects. Like the board game that emulates it MONOPOLYtm, that process inevitably has an end game. That point has been reached and constantly deferred many times. It has created a totally unbalanced world economy and a situation where every country owes money. 'Securities' are still being sold despite an underlying two quadrillion dollars worth of derivative trades making a mockery of book-keeping and creating the ongoing Global Financial Crisis. And some plonkers keep asking "what's wrong with the system" Durrrhhh. Nobody I relate to wants a 'war'. Wars are stupid and destructive, even as analogy. There's a limit to repair work as an effective means of keeping a structure together. Don't pull down the old house before the new one is constructed; but for gods sake it's time we started on a new building.

Has feminism/multiculturalism/enforced attempts at equality been good or bad for capitalism? 

Well, we know the work force and market has certainly grown vastly.  And with multiculturalism and globaliazation reducing different peoples to blank, interchangeable eaters, we have the creation of one world market - Surely one of the holy grails of capitalism. 

Let's not pretend it's a war on capitalism.  It's a war FOR capitalists.