Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Are Re-Education Camps That Far Fetched?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    I am officially asking that you don't respond to any threads I start.
    If you heed the warning about heads and parapets you will come to no harm.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    My point was that you don't actually practice your definition despite preaching it.
    That does not make the definition itself wrong.
    It also means the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
    synonyms: forbearance, toleration, sufferance, liberality, open-mindedness, lack of prejudice, lack of bias, broad-mindedness, liberalism;
    patience, long-suffering, magnanimity, sympathy, understanding, charity, lenience, leniency, lenity, indulgence, clemency, permissiveness, complaisance, laxness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Since you donít seem to like my definition may I ask what yours is.
    My point was that you don't actually practice your definition despite preaching it.

    Here ya go:

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    There is no reasoning about gods and the magic they perform. If they were reasonable they would not be gods and their actions would not be magic. What JPH is talking about is his view given the suspension of disbelief that he experiences because he is enthralled by the book. All belief comes from this position which is alongside reality and is the same that you would experience if you are engrossed in a movie or a good thriller. Because it is constantly repeated, the artificial reality of the book becomes ingrained. Religion is that sort of habit, a bit like smoking or alcohol.
    Ah, so you simply refuse to learn anything, and instead decide to vomit forth bigotry on a massive scale. It's hypocritical trolls like you that make me really sick. I am officially asking that you don't respond to any threads I start. It's clear as day that you are only here to

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    FF, no one on this board thinks you are open minded. Are we all wrong? Ok, here is a start, you often speak of people of faith and reason. I mentioned this earlier. We believe that a rational God created an intelligible universe and rational creatures. The rational created the rational with intention. But if you are a non-theist then you must believe that the non-rational, non-intending forces of nature created rational beings. The non-rational creating the rational - by accident (without intention). Why does your position make more sense than mine? How is it that the non-rational forces of nature can be considered a suitable source for human rationality?
    Your position makes some sense, at least to a first approximation, if your hypothesis about the existence of a rational God is correct. The problem for me is that at that interesting point you cease all further enquiries about your hypothesis and start worshiping it and obsessing over the ancient writings. I think it is more interesting in this age to go the investigative route and then you need to consider what is available for investigation. God is not.

    There may be scientific answers ahead of us to questions about consciousness, morality on so on. We can hope that the scientific method will continue to be as fruitful as it so far has proved. The religious method, in my opinion, is bogged down in nonsense and strange rituals to the point that it does not itself know anymore what it is trying to do. It is confused by scientific discoveries, not enlightened by them. It only pretends to give answers to the important questions.

    This is not closed minded; it is just where I stand at the moment. I do not mind that religion works for you but it is not hazard free for the rest of us because you cannot appeal against God's plan.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    My political opinions are in about the middle. I canít think of anything I have written that would be especially controversial in most circles. My various prejudices are moveable. You seem to think that because I disagree with you about how the world operates I ought to shut up and go away. That would be your intolerance; not mine. I claim no special knowledge and I think it is good to hear a diversity of views and argue about them. I am fascinated by your opinions even though I find it difficult to drag them out of you. It so happens that I think many of my own opinions are soundly based but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Do you have that same willingness? One of the very striking absurdities about the faithful is that they say that nothing would convince them to give up their faith. This is the very definition of closed mindedness. I am not in that particular camp.
    FF, no one on this board thinks you are open minded. Are we all wrong? Ok, here is a start, you often speak of people of faith and reason. I mentioned this earlier. We believe that a rational God created an intelligible universe and rational creatures. The rational created the rational with intention. But if you are a non-theist then you must believe that the non-rational, non-intending forces of nature created rational beings. The non-rational creating the rational - by accident (without intention). Why does your position make more sense than mine? How is it that the non-rational forces of nature can be considered a suitable source for human rationality?

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Your problem FF, is that you can't see or will not admit that political philosophies like the one you hold can become just as ingrained and impervious to reason as any religious view. In my many discussion with you it is obvious that not only are you intolerant of the views of others, you also only give lip service to the concept of diversity. These two ideals that you so laud are the very things that you (and most on the left) do not practice.
    My political opinions are in about the middle. I canít think of anything I have written that would be especially controversial in most circles. My various prejudices are moveable. You seem to think that because I disagree with you about how the world operates I ought to shut up and go away. That would be your intolerance; not mine. I claim no special knowledge and I think it is good to hear a diversity of views and argue about them. I am fascinated by your opinions even though I find it difficult to drag them out of you. It so happens that I think many of my own opinions are soundly based but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Do you have that same willingness? One of the very striking absurdities about the faithful is that they say that nothing would convince them to give up their faith. This is the very definition of closed mindedness. I am not in that particular camp.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    There is no reasoning about gods and the magic they perform. If they were reasonable they would not be gods and their actions would not be magic. What JPH is talking about is his view given the suspension of disbelief that he experiences because he is enthralled by the book. All belief comes from this position which is alongside reality and is the same that you would experience if you are engrossed in a movie or a good thriller. Because it is constantly repeated, the artificial realty of the book becomes ingrained. Religion is that sort of habit, a bit like smoking or alcohol.
    Your problem FF, is that you can't see or will not admit that political philosophies like the one you hold can become just as ingrained and impervious to reason as any religious view. In my many discussion with you it is obvious that not only are you intolerant of the views of others, you also only give lip service to the concept of diversity. These two ideals that you so laud are the very things that you (and most on the left) do not practice.
    Last edited by seer; 05-14-2014, 07:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    You don't understand the first thing about faith.
    There is no reasoning about gods and the magic they perform. If they were reasonable they would not be gods and their actions would not be magic. What JPH is talking about is his view given the suspension of disbelief that he experiences because he is enthralled by the book. All belief comes from this position which is alongside reality and is the same that you would experience if you are engrossed in a movie or a good thriller. Because it is constantly repeated, the artificial reality of the book becomes ingrained. Religion is that sort of habit, a bit like smoking or alcohol.
    Last edited by firstfloor; 05-14-2014, 06:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • firstfloor
    replied
    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    A 'quiz' that contains a bunch of 'questions' in which you either answer the way they want you to answer or else you're a bigot. Do you really think I don't recognize this type of quiz FF?
    Everyoneís a bit bigoted about something; and ignorant and hypocritical. I canít say I worry much about it but I do read things from time to time that make me aware of an injustice that I had not recognized before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Someone should put you on the naughty step.
    Someone should throw you out of the first floor window.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    You might be. I would recommend a self test and try to avoid calling a bigot a bigot Ďcos they are likely to call you a bigot right back.
    http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests...ous-bigot-test
    A 'quiz' that contains a bunch of 'questions' in which you either answer the way they want you to answer or else you're a bigot. Do you really think I don't recognize this type of quiz FF?

    Leave a comment:


  • lilpixieofterror
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It's exactly what I made the poor little butter bar (Second Lieutenant) admit. It's enforced viewpoint compliance. There is no "diversity" in thought or word. You either speak what they tell you to, or else.
    You know, it usually isn't very nice to mess with Second Lieutenants like that. They have years of bluing to overcome (we only have months of it to overcome).

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    I'm not in favor of employment at will.
    Why?

    Leave a comment:


  • Psychic Missile
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    You mean it would be OK to fire a homosexual because he supports gay marriage publicly?
    I'm not in favor of employment at will.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 03:02 PM
1 response
49 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 01:58 PM
0 responses
51 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Started by Cow Poke, 10-15-2021, 11:30 AM
15 responses
125 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 10-15-2021, 10:20 AM
8 responses
66 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-15-2021, 09:43 AM
14 responses
160 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Working...
X