Comments for Bookworm Room

Comment on Woolwich: The result of 40 years of teaching people to feel, rather than to act. by SADIE

SADIE — Sat, 25 May 2013 23:16:16 +0000

here's a great article by Oleg Atbashian on the totalitarian nature of the left.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs? To preach tolerance and be so intolerant? To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism? To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs? To march for peace and defend the militants? To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt? To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts? To speak of liberties and promote government dictate? To bolster feminism and deride successful women? To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East? To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals? To care about the children and condemn them to intellectual mutilation? To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards? To support the troops and side with their murderers? To demand love and be full of hate? The bad news is that these are not contradictions. Worse yet, sensible people will keep losing ground to those whom they shrug off as bumbling sacks of absurdities, for as long as they don’t understand that the above paradoxical statements aren’t, in fact, oxymorons, but contain a very consistent logic. In this sense, the best key to unlocking the mystery of the Progressive Chauvinist mind, breaking the leftist code, and discerning their collectivist morality is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of Progressive Chauvinism:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism”

Comment on The peculiar coincidence of Muslims who commit acts of violence by shirleyelizabeth

shirleyelizabeth — Sat, 25 May 2013 21:00:11 +0000

Does Islam have a religious hierarchy like Catholocism/Judaism? Do they profess to any priesthood power? I’d say maybe they’re waiting for the terrorism call to come from THE leader (not afforded to Christians), but I hear it’s in the Koran already.

Comment on Why atheists have no fixed moral points — and why that’s a problem (even if they’re really sweet people) by Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Sat, 25 May 2013 19:20:43 +0000

Spartacus, you said in #50: God hates sin, and this place was certified 100% sin-free until we came along and messed it all up. This could have been prevented by making us all little automatons who would never sin, but apparently something else was important enough to go ahead and allow sin, and the obvious candidate is free will.

Your argument supporting free will is so much simpler than mine, that Occam’s razor would compel me to grant it immense seriousness, thus leading me to faith in a Creator. I must wonder why I resist that so?

Which leads me to (probably) wrap up my involvement in this thread with the recollection of a joke.

Jesus strode and stood in front of the fallen woman, and remonstrated with the angry townspeople. ”Whom among you can claim to be wholly pure in virtue?”, he concluded. ”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” He stood there waiting, and for several seconds there was no response; but then a stone flew from the crowd and struck him soundly in the chest. He turned in the direction of the thrower, and upon seeing, said in dismay, “Mother!”

Comment on Woolwich: The result of 40 years of teaching people to feel, rather than to act. by JohnC

JohnC — Sat, 25 May 2013 19:16:36 +0000

Western civilizations seem to be giving one another some type of socialist cancer.
One of the worst symptoms is a fear of testosterone.
This results in administrations filled top to bottom with beta males writing policies that punish alpha male behavior in their fellow countrymen.

Comment on Why atheists have no fixed moral points — and why that’s a problem (even if they’re really sweet people) by Spartacus

Spartacus — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:45:31 +0000

jj — I agree that complete, final, mathematical proof is not something we’re going to get, but it comes down to a question of the standards you choose in order to adopt a working hypothesis as you go through life.

And I’m with jj… it’s been real, it’s been fun, and I’ll catch yall on another thread.

Comment on Why atheists have no fixed moral points — and why that’s a problem (even if they’re really sweet people) by Spartacus

Spartacus — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:30:26 +0000

Oh, I fully support people’s free-speech right to make all sorts of silly claims, but when they do, I would prefer to see society draw a sharper distinction between “claims to be” and “lives it, loves it, walks the talk, and bears good fruit.” And my church is probably more hard-over on that stuff than most, but it’s just a recognition that saving grace doesn’t come cheap.

Now, on all the other stuff… you’re openly coming from a different point of view, so I calibrated that adjustment in and just enjoyed the originality and mental agility of your comments. But we’re on the same frequency regarding free will. God hates sin, and this place was certified 100% sin-free until we came along and messed it all up. This could have been prevented by making us all little automatons who would never sin, but apparently something else was important enough to go ahead and allow sin, and the obvious candidate is free will.

Comment on Why atheists have no fixed moral points — and why that’s a problem (even if they’re really sweet people) by Charles Martel

Charles Martel — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:22:30 +0000

Spartacus, however many ducks it took to randomly line up in a row, and however long it took them to do it, they apparently did, didn’t they?

As pointed out several times in this discussion, there hasn’t been enough “however long” since the Big Bang (approx. 14 billion years) for all those ducks to line up. It is simply statistically impossible in that short time to amass the staggering amounts of information needed to generate portobello mushrooms, let alone ducks.

Danny’s analogy works perfectly well once you understand that the mechanical contrivance he has you discovering on the moon is one billionth as complex as the self-generating ducks you claim are the results of blind chance and enough time. However, there wasn’t enough time. See above.
.

Comment on Woolwich: The result of 40 years of teaching people to feel, rather than to act. by Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:12:53 +0000

Vinny, the sad fact is that, in Britain, you are considered the criminal if you use a weapon to defend yourself. There was a pathetic case not long ago where an elderly woman was prosecuted for slamming a window on the fingers of a burglar that was trying to break into her home.
I’m afraid that the Brits (and Swedes) are well on their way to full dhimmitude.

Comment on Woolwich: The result of 40 years of teaching people to feel, rather than to act. by Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 25 May 2013 18:08:41 +0000

I wonder if this now decreased soldier was one of the clients that sought training from Tim Larkin, and was denied that opportunity because the British political class refused to admit Larkin to the UK, on account of his training being “too violent” for the British. The towns that received riots and were the one who paid Larkin and arranged for his visit, were told that this was “too violent” for them to have and that it would cause societal instability.

Yea.

Comment on Why atheists have no fixed moral points — and why that’s a problem (even if they’re really sweet people) by jj

jj — Sat, 25 May 2013 17:40:55 +0000

Okay, I can’t play any more, I now have a deadline staring me in the face. Final thought: Spartacus, however many ducks it took to randomly line up in a row, and however long it took them to do it, they apparently did, didn’t they? Here we are. You can’t disprove that (Popper, again) any more than the Guy Behind the Cloud can be established either way.

Danny, I suspect I’ll pretty much always be able to tell the difference between all the little live things, and obvious mechanical artifacts. Mechanical artifacts do evolve – put your phone beside Univac – but the evolution to which we refer requires life. I recognize the difference as readily as I can spot an transitive verb lying around where there should be an intransitive one.

Mike – you don’t believe that? As you say: why?

I have to go drive a couple of hours and be functional when I get there. Later…