There is no place for morality and moral disputes over such issues. In dealing with the machtpolitik of the USA or the blood politics of the Insurgents it is better to suspend moral questions. At
I think the kind of clinical attitude you describe is far, far more evil than hate. Those who know about Simone Weil are often extraordinarily enthusiastic about some of her ideas, while finding other elements of her philosophy difficult to cope with. She died in exile in England during WW2, and, although sh
Why is it so hard to understand that it's proper to celebrate the death of one who intended to kill you? It's not hard at all. It seems to be hardwired into us, along with our perfectly natural instinct for self-preservation. I'm personally happy to hear the news of his death, but I'm also going to do my an
2. Meh, Personally....I think thats a load of dung. Why do you think it's a pile of dung, Lucas? Mesopotamia means "between (μέσος - [mesos] in Greek) the rivers" (πόταμος - [potamos] is the Greek for river) and refers to a fertile area between the Tigris and the Euphrates, covering modern day Iraq, easter
Because deep in their heart of hearts, the pro-marriage people would know that they won. I agree with this. Trouble is both sides claim to be the pro-marriage people.
Apparently not, since a lot of Americans when polled seem to think that civil unions are tolerable but calling it "marriage" isn't. And this is the interesting thing. The way that language works is that things often have official names, and then names that people use in more informal speech. It hardly matte
JoeUser Forums
There is however a silver lining: The boycott motion approved by NATFHE will only be effective for three days due to a merger between NATFHE and the Association of University Teachers, a smaller union, which is scheduled to take place on June 1. NATFHE has indicated that the new body will not be bound by the decis
Conservatives, in my opinion, are much better at showing restraint than left-wing liberals Conservative nuts (particularly militia nuts, the natural opposite of the Greenpeacer) are often just frightening <
Yes, Chak, you seem to agree then continue to lump religious ideas into the "stupid" camp. No. A careful reading of what I wrote would show I agree to no such thing. Look at what I actually said: But aren't some
Although things got a bit heated here, isn't this thread a great ad for the whole idea of political blogging? Someone puts out an idea, people respond and the original poster has the guts to say, "hey, maybe I was wrong"... ... usually when we put our ideas out there, it is supposed that this is our considered and final opinion on the matter which we will stubbornly defend to the death. For this reason, people who disagree feel the need to go
The true irony about the liberal doctrine is that they don't see how intolerant they are of people with Conservative viewpoints, while they are preaching about how we need to be more tolerant of people with liberal viewpoints! I'm not sure that this is true. Americans use the word 'liberal' in a somewhat unusual way (compared to the rest of the planet
When someone insults my intelligence after they find out I hold some religious belief or other, they almost always later use that as an excuse to degrade other unrelated opinions. That is stupid and unfair, although it is worth asking if those 'other opinions' are always so completely 'unrelated'. We tend to
on the surface it seems to solve the problem. Yes, but as you rightly imply, the problem isn't really solved. Those that take another life or lives on the way out are not show
But why does it 'get' you? It's hardly a surprise that some people who are scornful of all religious ideas will say that your beliefs are as stupid as they are untrue and that you are a fool for believing them. How can this touch you, unless you let it? My own theory is that a touchiness on this subject by religious believers comes about because of a fear that there might be some truth in the barb. Things that we know to be untrue rarely hurt us in the same way. Now, this
It seems natural that we have a liking for some persons, things and situations; it seems natural that we have an aversion for some persons, things and situations. But the truth is 'like' and 'dislike' cause mental suffering for ourselves and others. So, here's a question: you are one day in a place with someone you love, someone you feel neutral about and someone you hate
do they often cover events that only occur in the US? I've only ever seen ones for international/English-speaking world things, like Easter, Christmas and that sort of deal. Indeed. Memorial Day isn't until June 6th in South Korea. In the UK Rememberance Sunday is the Sunday nearest November 11th. I'm sure o
While I may voice my opinions I never try to twist language in order to try and redefine basic social definitions in my favor. I'm interested in what you mean by this. It seems to me to be quite a leap from coining a word to describe an unfortunate and irrational malice, and 'social engineering'.
I really hate the wanton misuse of the term "homophobic". Phobic means "fear", not dislike. Not quite. The Greek word phobia is derived from φόβος (phobos), which in its original Homeric sense meant flight, or panic. (Interestingly Greek seems to have as many different words for fear as for love). The modern English word 'phobia' means an inte
If there is any fallout from this incident in Iraq, the blame will belong to al-murtha and the leftists who are celebrating this tragic event. No. If the allegations turn out to be true, the blame will belong to the guilty individuals who carried out the atrocity - and that includes any further casua
We need to fight wars as if they were executions. Swift, very destructive, and overwhelmingly successful in destroying the people who need to be destroyed. Collateral damage goes along with that, but in the end if the reason for the war doesn't merit the risk of innocent death you shouldn't be making war at all.
I've read this thread with interest and I think that Mrs Dispenza's ignorant attitude may have hurt you even more than you let on here. Here's the deal though: haven't I've also seen you on JU making it clear you just how much you hate 'faggots'? If Mrs Dispenza had ever popped into your head at those moments you might have paused for a second. Instead, let's be frank, you give a good impression of seeming to dish out the same kind of prejudice that upset you so much at an early age. In
It would be great if we all, I mean everyone in the US, would just not go to the polls and vote In 1998 and 2002, 63% (!) of eligible voters stayed away from the US mid-term elections. Since 1960 (at least) mid-term turnout of eligible voters has been consistently less than 50%, with a 'high' in 1966 of 48.4%. It doesn't seem to make much difference..
As far as the events unfolding in Iraq are concerned, I remain an agnostic. I thought at the time (on balance), that the decision to invade was a mistake, not because it was undesirable to get rid of Saddam Hussein, or that he hadn’t provided more than enough provocation to warrant attack, but because I was sceptical about how clearly the ‘coalition’ had thought about
he knows a large portion of western civilization is looking desperately for falsehood to justify its angst toward religion. Actually I think a double game is going on here. Certainly there's money to be made in reflecting 'angst toward religion', but another target audience must be those looking for religio
The only bone I have to pick with your article is trying to compare the peaceful protests being done by the Christians and the week long rampage done by the Muslims. That's a valid bone to pick - although I think you'll agree that I compare the Christians favourably <img src="http://images.stardock.com/JU/sm