Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Feds take custody of evidence from Zimmerman trial

Page 4 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jul 2013, 12:19 am

Thelibrarian wrote:
Bill, I will work with parts of what you wrote as follows:

"Just because Voltaire had believed the individual should be placed above the God he didn't believe in doesn't mean that's the opinion of liberals today. It may surprise you that I am a church member - I belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which is hardly a bastion of liberal theology."

Then you have a dissonance problem: Christianity places God above all else and liberalism places the invididual above all else. This is why the liberal, mainstream Protestant churches are dying. Many of them have fewer adherents in absolute numbers--not percentage-wise--than they had in the 1950's. In fact, the Church of England, which was part of the liberal avant garde, garners less than five percent of English citizens on any given Sunday. There are more Muslims in mosques on Fridays by far. The only churches that have grown have been the conservative churches, such as the evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Tell me, do you think liberalism has a fixed meaning, or does liberal mean anything you want it to?

"And last time I checked, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself a liberal, and hardly clung to Voltaire's opinions."

The MLK myth is the very embodiment of hyperreality. From what I've read about MLK, from multiple sources--including Michael Eric Dyson, who is hardly a right-winger--MLK was a communist sympathizer if not a full-fledged communist, a serial adulterer, a plagiarizer, and very possibly a number of other bad things. In fact, when I was doing my master's in library science, the University of Washington had MLK's plagiarized PhD thesis beside the work he copied as an example of what would not be tolerated. This is why his FBI record was sealed for fifty years, despite legal challenges over the years; it will be made public in 2027. The fact that few people are aware of this speaks of the very liberal hyperreality that I'm talking about. The facts make it very hard to see MLK as an example of a good Christian. Do the facts on MLK matter to you? Or would you rather be fashionable?

"As a matter of fact, back in the days of the Reagan Revolution, when even Democratic presidential candidates wre afraid to use the word liberal, as if it was a dirty word, I still unabashedly declared my political views. So no, even when liberalism is out of fashion, then I'm also proudly out of fashion."

Yet more hyperreality: I'm concerned about what things really mean and the way they are. And by proper definition, Reagan was a hybrid of right-liberal (i.e., free trader, reducing taxes on the wealthy, globalist, and for open borders), as well as conservative (anti-communist, pro-prayer in schools, anti-abortion, etc.). So, if liberalism was unfashionable, so was Reagan. The fact that people think differently, again, is pure hyperreality.

I got rid of my TV twenty years ago, and have never watched a lot of it. Books and periodicals are all I have to go by.


Liberalism, like any other political ideology, is rather ephemeral, and is changing and shifting as time and circumstance dictate. So no, a liberal of today has little to do with the liberalism of Voltaire. If anything, Ayn Rand, who is a darling of the libertarian right, takes the position that the individual takes precedent over the God she didn't believe in, and that selfishness is a virtue.
As far as the decline of mainline denominations is concerned - - that position is way overblown. One author (whose name escapes me) had argued that mainline lowering membership has more to do with low birthrates due to birth control use rather than the hemorrhaging of membership, while evangelicals and others tend to see contraception as sinful. As well, evangelicals actually count baptisms rather than actual new members, and because many evangelicals get re baptized multiple times, their numbers are inflated. Evangelical churches through their alliance with the political right, as well as emphasis on the so called culture wars and social conservatism gives them an appeal to people who are less interested in the emphasis on theology in more mainline churches.
In regard to Martin Luther King Jr. - - everyone's heard those charges. Even if they were one hundred percent true, the fact is none of that diminishes his accomplishments in the struggle for civil rights. And from the statements you've made revealing your Neo-Confederate beliefs makes your opinions on Dr. King suspect.
And what the hell is hyperreality?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

25 Jul 2013, 12:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
What real conservatism is is a belief system that posits God, society, and family above the individual; liberalism places the individual above all else, including reality itself. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve a particular people and their ways in a particular place and time. In other words, real conservatism is traditional because it is about ideas and procedures that have a time-tested track record of working. Liberalism, on the other hand, was cooked up by sick minds possessed by a blinding hatred for God and Christianity, and it shows in its bloody and tragic history, right up to the present.

"God, society and family above the individual . . . "
I'm not sure of God's intentions, but I'm always aware of the presence of greater intelligence.
Society . . . I'm not going to put my faith in other people.
Family is dead.
The individual is all that's left.

I know that sounds nihilistic, but I think it's true.


Ann, family isn't dead where I'm from, and it's still possible even for an aspie to trust a few people. I think that's because the area I'm in is more conservative.

Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with individualism, especially for aspies. But for NT's it can be carried too far, and what has happened on Wall Street in recent years is a good example of individualism's downside. All the people who caused this mess cared about was their own benefit; nothing else mattered.


Wall Street liberal? I always hear defenders of capitalism/conservatism advocating the rights of the individual, even at the expense of the common good. And it's this same brand of conservatism that has made an alliance with the religious right, and superficially adopted Christian rhetoric of God and family values. But that rhetoric only comes up to bash gay marriage, but is conveniently forgotten when it comes to feeding and housing poor families with children.
Incidentally, Texas isn't the only place on the map where God and family are held in the highest esteem. That certainly applies for me here in the very blue state of Washington.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I find these distinctions between liberal and conservative to be so complex as to be meaningless. They appear to be a shorthand for something, but no one can agree on what.
It's better, I think, to take each person as an individual with a unique perspective. To adhere to a named value system, such as liberalism, seems to simplify things too much. Better to take each question and evaluate it without sticking to the tenets of a given philosophy.

Bill, I'm not sure what hyperreality is either. I have enough trouble clinging to regular reality, God help me if there's another one.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jul 2013, 12:56 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
What real conservatism is is a belief system that posits God, society, and family above the individual; liberalism places the individual above all else, including reality itself. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve a particular people and their ways in a particular place and time. In other words, real conservatism is traditional because it is about ideas and procedures that have a time-tested track record of working. Liberalism, on the other hand, was cooked up by sick minds possessed by a blinding hatred for God and Christianity, and it shows in its bloody and tragic history, right up to the present.

"God, society and family above the individual . . . "
I'm not sure of God's intentions, but I'm always aware of the presence of greater intelligence.
Society . . . I'm not going to put my faith in other people.
Family is dead.
The individual is all that's left.

I know that sounds nihilistic, but I think it's true.


Ann, family isn't dead where I'm from, and it's still possible even for an aspie to trust a few people. I think that's because the area I'm in is more conservative.

Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with individualism, especially for aspies. But for NT's it can be carried too far, and what has happened on Wall Street in recent years is a good example of individualism's downside. All the people who caused this mess cared about was their own benefit; nothing else mattered.


Wall Street liberal? I always hear defenders of capitalism/conservatism advocating the rights of the individual, even at the expense of the common good. And it's this same brand of conservatism that has made an alliance with the religious right, and superficially adopted Christian rhetoric of God and family values. But that rhetoric only comes up to bash gay marriage, but is conveniently forgotten when it comes to feeding and housing poor families with children.
Incidentally, Texas isn't the only place on the map where God and family are held in the highest esteem. That certainly applies for me here in the very blue state of Washington.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I find these distinctions between liberal and conservative to be so complex as to be meaningless. They appear to be a shorthand for something, but no one can agree on what.
It's better, I think, to take each person as an individual with a unique perspective. To adhere to a named value system, such as liberalism, seems to simplify things too much. Better to take each question and evaluate it without sticking to the tenets of a given philosophy.

Bill, I'm not sure what hyperreality is either. I have enough trouble clinging to regular reality, God help me if there's another one.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,948
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

29 Jul 2013, 12:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian wrote:
Bill, I will work with parts of what you wrote as follows:

"Just because Voltaire had believed the individual should be placed above the God he didn't believe in doesn't mean that's the opinion of liberals today. It may surprise you that I am a church member - I belong to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which is hardly a bastion of liberal theology."

Then you have a dissonance problem: Christianity places God above all else and liberalism places the invididual above all else. This is why the liberal, mainstream Protestant churches are dying. Many of them have fewer adherents in absolute numbers--not percentage-wise--than they had in the 1950's. In fact, the Church of England, which was part of the liberal avant garde, garners less than five percent of English citizens on any given Sunday. There are more Muslims in mosques on Fridays by far. The only churches that have grown have been the conservative churches, such as the evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.

Tell me, do you think liberalism has a fixed meaning, or does liberal mean anything you want it to?

"And last time I checked, Martin Luther King Jr. was himself a liberal, and hardly clung to Voltaire's opinions."

The MLK myth is the very embodiment of hyperreality. From what I've read about MLK, from multiple sources--including Michael Eric Dyson, who is hardly a right-winger--MLK was a communist sympathizer if not a full-fledged communist, a serial adulterer, a plagiarizer, and very possibly a number of other bad things. In fact, when I was doing my master's in library science, the University of Washington had MLK's plagiarized PhD thesis beside the work he copied as an example of what would not be tolerated. This is why his FBI record was sealed for fifty years, despite legal challenges over the years; it will be made public in 2027. The fact that few people are aware of this speaks of the very liberal hyperreality that I'm talking about. The facts make it very hard to see MLK as an example of a good Christian. Do the facts on MLK matter to you? Or would you rather be fashionable?

"As a matter of fact, back in the days of the Reagan Revolution, when even Democratic presidential candidates wre afraid to use the word liberal, as if it was a dirty word, I still unabashedly declared my political views. So no, even when liberalism is out of fashion, then I'm also proudly out of fashion."

Yet more hyperreality: I'm concerned about what things really mean and the way they are. And by proper definition, Reagan was a hybrid of right-liberal (i.e., free trader, reducing taxes on the wealthy, globalist, and for open borders), as well as conservative (anti-communist, pro-prayer in schools, anti-abortion, etc.). So, if liberalism was unfashionable, so was Reagan. The fact that people think differently, again, is pure hyperreality.

I got rid of my TV twenty years ago, and have never watched a lot of it. Books and periodicals are all I have to go by.


Liberalism, like any other political ideology, is rather ephemeral, and is changing and shifting as time and circumstance dictate. So no, a liberal of today has little to do with the liberalism of Voltaire. If anything, Ayn Rand, who is a darling of the libertarian right, takes the position that the individual takes precedent over the God she didn't believe in, and that selfishness is a virtue.
As far as the decline of mainline denominations is concerned - - that position is way overblown. One author (whose name escapes me) had argued that mainline lowering membership has more to do with low birthrates due to birth control use rather than the hemorrhaging of membership, while evangelicals and others tend to see contraception as sinful. As well, evangelicals actually count baptisms rather than actual new members, and because many evangelicals get re baptized multiple times, their numbers are inflated. Evangelical churches through their alliance with the political right, as well as emphasis on the so called culture wars and social conservatism gives them an appeal to people who are less interested in the emphasis on theology in more mainline churches.
In regard to Martin Luther King Jr. - - everyone's heard those charges. Even if they were one hundred percent true, the fact is none of that diminishes his accomplishments in the struggle for civil rights. And from the statements you've made revealing your Neo-Confederate beliefs makes your opinions on Dr. King suspect.
And what the hell is hyperreality?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Three points:

1. Yes, liberalism is an inherently unstable as nitroglycerin. But it does have several abiding characteristics: A strong belief in individualism, egalitarianism, change for its own sake, universalism, and an emphasis on liberty, though this is rarely realized in practice.

2. At any given time though, liberalism does mean something definite. If the term "liberalism" means nothing, then why not call Pat Buchanan, Stalin, and Mussolini liberals? No, just as we aren't entitled to our own facts, we aren't entitled to our own word definitions unless we stipulate them at the beginning of a conversation. What the postmodernists call "slippage" notwithstanding, language that isn't conventional defeats its whole purpose, which is to communicate with other people. Therefore, all parties to the conversation must be privy to the definitions of all terms used--including terms like liberalism. Otherwise, verbal communication becomes impossible, and this should be obvious.

3. Go look up hyperreality if you wish; it is in Wikipedia. But in essence hyperreality is pretend reality that comes from mass media--or the liberal version of reality. Hyperreality is what liberals want reality to be, not what it actually is. And your games with the definition of liberalism are perfect examples.

Do you really believe that words such as liberal have no meaning, or is this something I'm supposed to believe?

Finally, you are right that mainstream Protestants aren't having children, which is a red flag for a decadent and failing socio-cultural system--i.e., liberalism. Only conservatives are having children in numbers large enough to come anywhere close to the replacement rate of 2.1 babies per woman. And the more liberal the state, the lower the birthrates.

As far as this being a complete explanation for the rapidly approaching extinction of mainline Protestantism, many are or have switched over to the less-liberal denominations. I don't know very many people, but I know of at least four people who have done just this.

Whether we're talking about homosexuality, divorce, open borders, or a host of other hot-button liberal issues, one can either place humanity first (and liberalism is nothing if not a humanistic movement), or one can place God first. But never both.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

29 Jul 2013, 1:46 pm

Thelibrarian wrote:
Go look up hyperreality if you wish; it is in Wikipedia. But in essence hyperreality is pretend reality that comes from mass media--or the liberal version of reality. Hyperreality is what liberals want reality to be, not what it actually is. And your games with the definition of liberalism are perfect examples.

But at what point does reality become hyperreality? Is the local newspaper hyperreality? Isn't it just another form of communication? A large group's discussion could be considered a hyperreality.
I can see that sometimes media and people gossiping create a false interest in something, but this is not always the case. You can't dismiss what media says simply because it is saying it. Often concerns of societal inteerest expressed in that forum.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jul 2013, 3:35 pm

Thelibrarian-

I think you've blinded yourself with ideology. The world isn't in black and white absolutes. Rather, ideologies - like everything else - fluctuates. You talk about "hyperreality," but if anything, you are the one ignoring actual reality in order to make things fit the way you seem to figure they should be.
As for individualism - if you're talking about the worth of the individual who has guaranteed rights, what's possibly wrong with that? America was founded on the principle that individuals have rights that are inalienable. Both liberals and conservatives claim this stand. If an American wants to be a Democrat, Republican, gay, straight, Christian, atheist, or have feathers implanted in their skull, they have the right to live as they want. And no, that doesn't clash with belief in Christ.
Speaking of which - the notion that mainline Christianity consists only of theological liberal churches is just an untruth promoted by the fundies and holy rollers out there. Mainline denominations in truth represent faiths on the right and left of center. While theologically liberal theologians - such as those who deny Christ's dual nature and Godhood - claim to be mainline, they hardly are, despite the agreement of evangelicals than they are. As I said before, my own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is hardly a bastion of liberal theology, though we are still part of the Protestant mainstream. If anything, the religious right can be likened to fast food - it's popular, the results are fast, and it might even be fun - but in the long run, it's not particularly good for you.
And in closing in regard to use of birth control - I challenge anyone to come up with a legitimate Biblical basis to condemn it's use. Mind you to use your words carefully if you choose to respond to this point, as my wife uses the pill, and I would be very offended if you were to attack her.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jul 2013, 8:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian-

America was founded on the principle that individuals have rights that are inalienable.


When America was founded slavery was legal and a powerful economic element in the doings of the nation. After the invention of the cotton gin slavery become even more important. The fortunes made in cotton cloth weaving in the north east depended on the produce of whip driven Negro slaves in the South

Every white male had inalienable rights. Only white male property owners could vote and that was changed only after the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Indian killer.

ruveyn



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jul 2013, 9:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Only white male property owners could vote and that was changed only after the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Indian killer.

ruveyn


As I understand it, based on an article in the Smithsonian from the mid 1970s, in at least one state the laws were written so that only property owners had the vote and there were no restrictions on the sex of the property owner. As a result, some women in at least one state did have the same right to vote as men as long as they were property owners.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jul 2013, 9:21 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian-

America was founded on the principle that individuals have rights that are inalienable.


When America was founded slavery was legal and a powerful economic element in the doings of the nation. After the invention of the cotton gin slavery become even more important. The fortunes made in cotton cloth weaving in the north east depended on the produce of whip driven Negro slaves in the South

Every white male had inalienable rights. Only white male property owners could vote and that was changed only after the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Indian killer.

ruveyn


That is absolutely correct. I'll correct myself and say, inalienable rights for white men - at the time. But it was a start, from which liberty eventually spread to the rest of the American populace.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

30 Jul 2013, 12:04 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Thelibrarian-

America was founded on the principle that individuals have rights that are inalienable.


When America was founded slavery was legal and a powerful economic element in the doings of the nation. After the invention of the cotton gin slavery become even more important. The fortunes made in cotton cloth weaving in the north east depended on the produce of whip driven Negro slaves in the South

Every white male had inalienable rights. Only white male property owners could vote and that was changed only after the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Indian killer.

ruveyn


That is absolutely correct. I'll correct myself and say, inalienable rights for white men - at the time. But it was a start, from which liberty eventually spread to the rest of the American populace.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I would add: the end of slavery started in the western world (in US, shame of us in Europe). And the expanded to the rest of it.

Indeed, slavery in arabic countries and middle east was equivalent (in slave trade market size and number of slaves) to slavery in new word. And Asia was no better. Why nobody speaks about it? Because it was the western world who made auto-critics about it. The rest of the world didn't.

Moral of the story: the one that made auto-critics and started the change is now the one that people blame and the one that serves as example of slavist country.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

05 Aug 2013, 2:29 pm

Just my two cents on some of the garbage flying around on this thread:

I consider myself to be somewhatr moderate. I have liberal leanings on some issues, and conservative leanings on others.
That being said, being a liberal does not mean that the individual is placed above all else. In large part, liberalism seems to put demographics above others, particularly those that are currently suffering from bias and discrimination. Conservatives seem to place a higher priority on those who are more similar to them, i.e. conservative christians, americans, etc. Both of these views have validity and and strengths, but they both also have some drawbacks as well. My big problem is that when a conservative labels someone else a liberal (or vice versa), then that person tends to make the faulty assumption that all of the other's views are the exact opposite. Over-simplification to the extreme.

I have trouble with the fact that the same people arguing for "chridstian morality" and "family values" seem to have no trouble with the idea of taking away programs that feed the hungry and give assistance to those less fortunate than themselves. Don't get me wrong, the systems in place are extremely flawed, but without them, there would be a whole lot more people stealing my sh*t because they need to feed their kids.

And one further thing that is bothering me, Someone on here said you can place humanity first or god first, but not both. That is a load of crap. You place god first by placing humanity first. The whole point of christianity (and most religions, for that matter) is to show your love for god by showing your love for all of his people.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2013, 3:00 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
Just my two cents on some of the garbage flying around on this thread:

I consider myself to be somewhatr moderate. I have liberal leanings on some issues, and conservative leanings on others.
That being said, being a liberal does not mean that the individual is placed above all else. In large part, liberalism seems to put demographics above others, particularly those that are currently suffering from bias and discrimination. Conservatives seem to place a higher priority on those who are more similar to them, i.e. conservative christians, americans, etc. Both of these views have validity and and strengths, but they both also have some drawbacks as well. My big problem is that when a conservative labels someone else a liberal (or vice versa), then that person tends to make the faulty assumption that all of the other's views are the exact opposite. Over-simplification to the extreme.

I have trouble with the fact that the same people arguing for "chridstian morality" and "family values" seem to have no trouble with the idea of taking away programs that feed the hungry and give assistance to those less fortunate than themselves. Don't get me wrong, the systems in place are extremely flawed, but without them, there would be a whole lot more people stealing my sh*t because they need to feed their kids.

And one further thing that is bothering me, Someone on here said you can place humanity first or god first, but not both. That is a load of crap. You place god first by placing humanity first. The whole point of christianity (and most religions, for that matter) is to show your love for god by showing your love for all of his people.


Thank you; my thoughts, exactly.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer