Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 84
Like Tree49Likes

Thread: The mouth breathing youtube media uh stars own crappy thread

  1. #16
    Cricketer Of The Year straw man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    l
    Posts
    9,239
    Thanks

    now give me a Like dammit

  2. #17
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cribbertopia
    Posts
    52,127
    Ausage likes this.
    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
    'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
    People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

    1. Stokes is pretty good
    2. Jono is a ****
    3. Taxation is theft

  3. #18
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,686
    Quote Originally Posted by straw man View Post
    I completely disagree with it, or more accurately think it's a null or not applicable argument - there's nothing to grasp onto there because the things he's pulling together are unrelated. Is Government religion. Umm no. Next question.

    I mean come on:

    'an actual God', oh yeah, that one up there in the clouds that we can all see and speaks unequivocally to all of us. Oh no, since that doesn't exist, I assume he means his particular God, not other peoples', and unsurprisingly that God holds the same morality that he does. Fancy that. And that should sit above the state which I would interpret as meaning he thinks his God's morality gets written into the law. It could mean he just thinks individuals can feel their God is a higher morality than the government, which is of course fine, however I don't think that's what he means and that he's launching a more a general attack on the idea that Church should keep its dirty mitts off of State.

    This can be seen with the same *** marriage thing. Suddenly the #freedom thing is out the window, but he convinces himself this is ok with a common trick. Instead of representing the argument as it is, which is that religious conservatives, via the government, are the ones reaching into peoples' lives and #freedoms to legally prevent them doing something they want to do (and doesn't hurt anyone else), he instead tries to convince us that those wanting to open up the definition of marriage i.e. remove restrictions are the ones pushing into lives and making moral judgements. This is not much more than a straight up lie. In the case of gay marriage the Supreme Court and Obama are precisely the ones not making moral judgement. That's the whole point. Meanwhile he wants to continue to get the government to impose his morality on people because God.
    That first quote is part of the 1/3 I don't agree with ftr.

    The god/government thing depends on how you've constructed god. If you're looking at god as the literal, white bearded spiritual being who sent his son to be crucified a couple of thousand years ago then there's very little resemblance. If you're looking at god as the moral arbiter of society, the monolith that bestows providence alongside human free will, the defender of the weak and smiter of the unjust then it's extremely similar. Having to explain to people that there's a difference between legality and morality is a good example of the phenomenon. To the question of whether I'd prefer a government or a god to be these things, I'd answer neither.

    The same *** marriage is actually a perfect example. Shapiro has stated many times that the same *** marriage issue for him is that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if they chose not to. I completely agree with him. People should also be free to tell those institutions where they can shove it if they're of the view that they're irrelevant fossils. I'd love the for conversation to be about why the government is in ANY way involved in telling adults who they can or can not make a life commitment to. That's not a point of view I've heard expressed (almost) anywhere. We implicitly accept that the government has the right to tell people who they can marry as much as they can tell priests who they'll accept at the altar. Obama and the SC are making a moral judgement (homosexuality is ok), it's just the side that you agree with. So what you get is a debate framed by both sides as a pseudo referendum on whether homosexuality is ok. It becomes less a question of why government should be involved in the most intensely personal parts of our lives and more a question of our collective moral conscience. Again, God = Government.

    "Representing the argument as it really is" is frankly a really dangerous reduction of what is an extremely complex issue. You're projecting your own prejudice on to the argument (ie. the only reason to oppose SSM is if you're a fundamentalist idiot) to dismiss a much more complex point (the government shouldn't be involved in dictating religious practice).

    Lastly I think you're wrong about him wanting the morality of his God written into law (to the extent that it's not already). He didn't mention politics in that article and I can recall very little (if any) conflation of church and state in his speeches.
    Last edited by Ausage; 03-08-2017 at 12:53 AM.
    zorax likes this.
    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.

    Too many bones, not enough CASH!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEHMbJ_FVfA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5oGJTUpbpA

    RIP Craig

  4. #19
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    That first quote is part of the 1/3 I don't agree with ftr.

    The god/government thing depends on how you've constructed god. If you're looking at god as the literal, white bearded spiritual being who sent his son to be crucified a couple of thousand years ago then there's very little resemblance. If you're looking at god as the moral arbiter of society, the monolith that bestows providence alongside human free will, the defender of the weak and smiter of the unjust then it's extremely similar. Having to explain to people that there's a difference between legality and morality is a good example of the phenomenon. To the question of whether I'd prefer a government or a god to be these things, I'd answer neither.

    The same *** marriage is actually a perfect example. Shapiro has stated many times that the same *** marriage issue for him is that religious institutions shouldn't be forced to marry gay couples if they chose not to. I completely agree with him. People should also be free to tell those institutions where they can shove it if they're of the view that they're irrelevant fossils. I'd love the for conversation to be about why the government is in ANY way involved in telling adults who they can or can not make a life commitment to. That's not a point of view I've heard expressed (almost) anywhere. We implicitly accept that the government has the right to tell people who they can marry as much as they can tell priests who they'll accept at the altar. Obama and the SC are making a moral judgement (homosexuality is ok), it's just the side that you agree with. So what you get is a debate framed by both sides as a pseudo referendum on whether homosexuality is ok. It becomes less a question of why government should be involved in the most intensely personal parts of our lives and more a question of our collective moral conscience. Again, God = Government.

    "Representing the argument as it really is" is frankly a really dangerous reduction of what is an extremely complex issue. You're projecting your own prejudice on to the argument (ie. the only reason to oppose SSM is if you're a fundamentalist idiot) to dismiss a much more complex point (the government shouldn't be involved in dictating religious practice).

    Lastly I think you're wrong about him wanting the morality of his God written into law (to the extent that it's not already). He didn't mention politics in that article and I can recall very little (if any) conflation of church and state in his speeches.
    This is literally what society is for, no?
    Flem274* likes this.
    do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
    who's going to make the violins?

    forever 63*


  5. #20
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,567
    I mean this whole thesis of religion being the only possible saviour against strong government is just not supported by evidence. There are tons of very religious societies in the world which do tend towards either outright tyranny (Saudi Arabia, Iran), incompetent governance (hey, at least the reverend believes in the right deity, who cares if he siphons off a bit of the church coffers)., or sectarian violence and cycles of terror from either side (Latin America, Africa). He might be talking about the evangelical tradition of settler churches, but the problem with that model is that it often fails to last more than a generation - because guess what people get influence from outside their little settler towns and see that there is more to life than finding a girl in high school and sticking with banging her missionary for the rest of your life. And the post-communist experience hardly seems to have a clear distinction between religious and non-religious countries when it comes to the size of the state and role of big government.

    I would argue that the industrial decline and the commodification of labour is far more important when trying to find reasons for the decline of religious mores in America (Geert Mak's In America is good on this). And these are inescapable consequences of economic and technological freedom: capital will always be more mobile than labor, so the manufacturing can go at any moment, and you can't put the drugs back in the bottle.
    straw man likes this.
    A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
    Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS

  6. #21
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    I mean this whole thesis of religion being the only possible saviour against strong government is just not supported by evidence. There are tons of very religious societies in the world which do tend towards either outright tyranny (Saudi Arabia, Iran), incompetent governance (hey, at least the reverend believes in the right deity, who cares if he siphons off a bit of the church coffers)., or sectarian violence and cycles of terror from either side (Latin America, Africa). He might be talking about the evangelical tradition of settler churches, but the problem with that model is that it often fails to last more than a generation - because guess what people get influence from outside their little settler towns and see that there is more to life than finding a girl in high school and sticking with banging her missionary for the rest of your life. And the post-communist experience hardly seems to have a clear distinction between religious and non-religious countries when it comes to the size of the state and role of big government.

    I would argue that the industrial decline and the commodification of labour is far more important when trying to find reasons for the decline of religious mores in America (Geert Mak's In America is good on this). And these are inescapable consequences of economic and technological freedom: capital will always be more mobile than labor, so the manufacturing can go at any moment, and you can't put the drugs back in the bottle.
    Eh, I would say that there is something within Protestant (and especially Calvinist) tradition which really lends itself to this whole idea of freemen-on-the-land shtick, where social mores are powerfully enforced by convention and is highly suspicious of government (read: the Catholic Church) dictat on social positions. Look at America, look at areas of South Africa where the Dutch Reformed Church was influential etc etc.
    Prince EWS likes this.

  7. #22
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausage View Post
    Lastly I think you're wrong about him wanting the morality of his God written into law (to the extent that it's not already). He didn't mention politics in that article and I can recall very little (if any) conflation of church and state in his speeches.
    Reading the Article, there's just a massive vibe along those lines as the principles of secular western democracy (humanism) are essentially what he is attacking to try and make his point.

  8. #23
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    27,151
    The view that the state should not be involved in marriage at all is extremely unconservative. Pretty clean break between conservatives and libertarians there.

    I also don't really agree with it in practice, although it's fine in theory. As things stand it needs a legal dimension to govern stuff like inheritance in the absence of a will.

  9. #24
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    The view that the state should not be involved in marriage at all is extremely unconservative. Pretty clean break between conservatives and libertarians there.

    I also don't really agree with it in practice, although it's fine in theory. As things stand it needs a legal dimension to govern stuff like inheritance in the absence of a will.
    It's fine in theory but that really would go against millennia of social organisation and governmental (to the extent that, like, Ancient Sumeria had a government) practice, far moreso than being fine with gay people would be. I have no problem with calling them all civil unions/partnerships/whatever for legal purposes, but I strongly question whether this is practical way to organise a society.

  10. #25
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Eh, I would say that there is something within Protestant (and especially Calvinist) tradition which really lends itself to this whole idea of freemen-on-the-land shtick, where social mores are powerfully enforced by convention and is highly suspicious of government (read: the Catholic Church) dictat on social positions. Look at America, look at areas of South Africa where the Dutch Reformed Church was influential etc etc.
    Yeah but they both ran out of things to exploit didn't they.

    And the scions of the Dutch Reformed Church didn't exactly introduce a non-tyrannical government once they had their Republic.

  11. #26
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    Yeah but they both ran out of things to exploit didn't they.

    And the scions of the Dutch Reformed Church didn't exactly introduce a non-tyrannical government once they had their Republic.
    Yeah, but the Calvinists didn't win the American Civil War. The Quakers did. Swap that around, and the parallel might become even clearer...

  12. #27
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    25,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    because guess what people get influence from outside their little settler towns and see that there is more to life than finding a girl in high school and sticking with banging her missionary for the rest of your life.
    Well maybe they should try banging her instead.
    vcs, NZTailender, Burgey and 1 others like this.

  13. #28
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Samuel_Vimes's Avatar
    Defend Your Castle Champion! Monkey Diving Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Holland/North Zealand
    Posts
    25,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    Yeah, but the Calvinists didn't win the American Civil War. The Quakers did. Swap that around, and the parallel might become even clearer...
    I think you've got to hold my hand through this logic

    They won in terms of control of federal government, but the settler spirit was still what went on to go on out west, no?

  14. #29
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    44,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes View Post
    I think you've got to hold my hand through this logic

    They won in terms of control of federal government, but the settler spirit was still what went on to go on out west, no?
    i meant more that had the calvinists won control over the country, then they would have instituted a similarly tyrannical government across the country. The South was a hotbed of state sanctioned terrorism even as it was. I'd say the western settler spirit was a product more of geography more than anything else.

  15. #30
    International Captain Ausage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I'll show ye!!
    Posts
    6,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    This is literally what society is for, no?
    Sure, but the process isn't top down. If humanity deems homosexuality to be acceptable (and I'd argue that battle's already been won) what right does a government or religious entity have to impose that as a right, either in the affirmative or negative?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbacks View Post
    Reading the Article, there's just a massive vibe along those lines as the principles of secular western democracy (humanism) are essentially what he is attacking to try and make his point.
    He's arguing against atheism, a spiritual position. That it reads to you as an attack on the pillars of our society is more evidence for the argument that we use government as a replacement for god.
    Starfighter likes this.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Podcasts, Radio, YouTube and other Media
    By Pratters in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-06-2017, 11:41 PM
  2. Youtube thread
    By Spinksy in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-08-2008, 01:07 AM
  3. Wcc Media Thread
    By bugssy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 07:44 PM
  4. Crappy run chases
    By thierry henry in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 18-12-2003, 10:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •