On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
> sanity wrote:
> >Excellent synthesis, information, and commentary.
> >
> >(I snipped most of the very long post ^_^ )
> >
> >On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 22:49, Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> >>The point here is that if the Muslims want to live on this earth, they
> >>need to learn to get along. Because if they can't, there are people on
> >>this planet more than capable and willing to dispatch them forthwith to
> >
> >
> >Of course, they are emboldened by our inaction. And it's getting
> >worse every day we give audience to pseudo-intellectual existentialist
> wimps.
> >
>
>
> 1) What the hell do "pseudo-intellectual exsistentialist wimps" have to
> do with any of this? Do you even know what existentialism is, Or are you
> simply trying to include anything you don't like (or don't understand)
> into a sensitive, misunderstood and misinterpreted subject in order to
> sway people by reason of fear and ignorance to your line of thought?
No, Sanity had it right. Existentialism is marked by a rejection of the
objective concepts of right and wrong. Actually, Sanity might have been
more accurate in portraying this as moral relativism, but it's just
about the same thing. Pseudo-intellectual is what all the media talking
heads and liberal university professors are. They generally share the
characteristic of being unable to defend their ideas, and adequately
refute opposing ideas. Yet they pretend to be intellectual.
Those "pseudo-intellectual existentialist wimps" are the ones who are on
TV and in the paper constantly sympathizing with the radical Muslims.
Brit Hume made a good point a week ago, that John Mohammed is rarely
described as a member of Nation of Islam by the media. It's not
politically correct to do so.
>
> 2) Islam _DOES_NOT_EQUATE_TO_ Liberalism. I feel the need to point this
> out because lately it seems that whenever I hear conservatives talk
> about this subject, they toss arround the terms seemingly interchangably
> without regard. If some liberals (and note that not all of them are) are
> sympathetic to Islam that's one matter, but to blame muslim outcry over
> something negative being said about their religion on Liberals is a
> complete other matter.
No one blames liberals for the Muslim outcry. Liberals are blamed for
sympathizing with them and giving them a free forum to express their
perverse views, without any critical analysis.
<snip>
> PS.
> I Hate those damn "We've done all the thinking for you, now here's how
> you should vote - no thinking involved" things. I hate it when
> Conservatives and whatever-the-hell-you-liberatarians-think-you-are do
> it, and I hate it when Liberals do it. Damn it, if people don't know
> enough about the issues they're voting about to make their own
> decissions, then perhaps they shouldn't be voting in te first place.
Amen. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the American public has no
clue at all about the issues, and yet are encouraged to vote anyway. The
result? Look at congress, or government at any level. Can you say
Torricelli?
My personal opinion is the ignorant people shouldn't vote. Leave the
election of leaders to the people who are paying attention. Our wise
Founding Fathers had other ideas about this. But I imagine it's one of
the reasons they chose a representative republic over a pure democracy.
The only problem with people going around telling you how to vote is the
fear that a lot of people might _listen_.
Paul
P.S. Hi Gnorb! Good to see you're back among us. ;-}
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:16:22 EDT