Consi: hold out hope for the intelligent life on the liberal side of the fence

I too hold out hope for intelligent life on the fascist side of politics but I’m not holding my breath.
Bull$hit has lost control of Congress - tsk tsk.
Obviously it’s only mid-terms - a lot of spin will take place in the next two years - The Prince will win.

The traits of an effective political leader are presented as:

1. a willingness to imitate the behavior of great men, e.g. those of Ancient Rome in particular, the book being written in the Renaissance
2. the ability to illustrate how government is necessary to the well-being of the populace, e.g. perhaps by demonstrating the consequences of yielding to mob rule by temporarily relaxing one’s grip
3. a dedication to the art of war — if only for the state’s actual survival
4. an understanding that apparent cruelties and vice may be essential to maintaining stability and power
5. prudence with respect to disbursement of one’s own wealth
6. making efforts to appear religious to sway the ”vulgar." Machiavelli extols King Ferdinand of Spain for using the cloak of religion to invade Italy numerous times — he praises the tactic yet hates the invasion of Italy by other monarchs.
7. the wisdom to seek advice and counsel only when it is needed

I especially like Point 6. 

I too hold out hope for intelligent life on the fascist side of politics but I’m not holding my breath.

There are lots of intelligent conservatives, LJ.  But compassionate conservatives?  The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is how wide a net they cast when considering what, and whom, they care about.

I’d add that there are lots of stupid people on both sides of the fence as well. 

I went to a pretty overtly liberal school. This school is routinely ranked one of the top five or six liberal arts colleges in the country, so one would assume that people who went there would be at least moderately intelligent, right? And yet, during the same week: I heard a young environmentalist talking about the need for “creative water usage” without any ability to give examples or even explain what she meant; and the head of the conservative student union wrote an op/ed in the school newspaper explaining how protecting the environment at all is unnecessary because if the earth could survive dinosaurs and volcanoes it is arrogant of us to think we can do anything to destroy it. Because T-Rex had the H-bomb, I guess.

Both of these people were clearly idiots. But I think the example illustrates a general rule: stupid liberals will come up with bad ways to pursue good goals, or will pursue goals that have unintended negative consequences, whereas stupid conservatives often seem to pursue goals with totally foreseeable negative consequences, which are either disregarded or are in fact the goal itself. Take the gay marriage issue: liberals support it, perhaps without fully considering some of the unintended consequences it might have, whereas conservatives are against it, knowing full well that being so has a direct negative impact on gay people. This either doesn’t bother them or is in fact the driving ambition itself. There is no liberal equivalent to this. The most you can argue is that liberals sometimes treat corporations like conservatives treat people, which I have a hard time seeing as less moral than the opposite. So that’s why I generally find myself on the liberal side- at least they aren’t TRYING to fuck anybody over. But it would be extremely disingenuous to say that a lot of head-slappingly stupid stuff doesn’t go down on this side.

Bob:

And what could anyone have against Jesus? I mean, whatever you believe, he was an advocate for peace and loving your neighbor.

Don responds:

No doubt Bob, you are an OK person. You would never hurt a fly as to your fellow human, as with me and many others, we do not hurt others.  It may not be in your nature to hurt others, two points for the good guys.  I give to you all the benefit of the doubt.

But where in all of hell’s half acre, with any common sense, as if you never read the bible, can you come up that idiot, dumb, statement about Jesus? Hearsay works its wonders every time.

So here are some bible quotes: (this is the very, VERY, short list of bible atrocities)

Decapitate Them!

“And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.’” (Numbers 25:3-4)

God Sends Pestilence

“Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel...” (I Chronicles 21:12)
“So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.” (I Chronicles 21:14)

Godly Mass Murder

“And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.” (I Samuel 6:19)

Raping And Killing

“Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)

The Sacred Penis

“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” (Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

I just “do not” have time to quote the entire bible to you but “Like father like son” or you must confess on this board that that Jesus is an entire “different” entity other than the bible god’s son.

Don

I’d add that there are lots of stupid people on both sides of the fence as well.

Indeed, Ulfrekr.  My favorite example of politically motivated stupidity on the left is the blinkered embrace by many “intellectuals” of postmodernism, a “politically correct” but content-free philosophy.  The classic takedown was physicist Alan Sokal’s paper Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, which was accepted and published in the postmodern journal Social Text in 1996.  The editors did not notice that Sokal’s paper was a spoof, possible because logical thinking is a tool of imperialist dead white European males.

Bob said: You never hear about atheists having sex with hookers because it isn’t news.

Don:

Bob I have news for you, marriage is a civil contract, where love, affection, and physical gratuity, are given in exchange for goods and services. By definition of a civil contract, of what marriage is, beyond any doubt, therefore all humans are hookers and prostitutes, by definition.

There are untold millions, if not billions, of atheist that honor their civil contract to another, ie to only one woman or man depending on gender and preference.

I do not have a problem with people “hiring” a temporary companion, or gaining rewards for that service or goods, “provided”:

they do not hurt themselves or others in any way shape or form

all reasonable precautions against hurting an other are taken

they live up to the agreed on terms

do not cause double jeopardy, or a contradiction, to a previous civil contract.

In addition, before any enjoyment takes place, from either side, both parties must be of legal age and of sound mind. 

You see Bob I can justify my reasoning, as other people before me—no god needed as to the value of one person to another, and do not ever expect people to stop being people, as you might as well ask a rock to stop being a rock.

Less you said:

What IDM and Ulfrekr said, they both beat me to it. My problem with Haggard has nothing to do with his being gay or doing drugs, it’s his hypocrisy for actively working against others who do the same while portraying himself as some sort of pious holy man worthy of emulating.

Don responded:

Les, I could never agree with you more. Haggard put on this cape of “I’m holy” and I’m supposed to say a duck doesn’t walk like a duck, yeah right.

Don

He broke one really important commandement: thou shalt not get found out).

zilch:

Indeed, Ulfrekr.  My favorite example of politically motivated stupidity on the left is the blinkered embrace by many “intellectuals” of postmodernism, a “politically correct” but content-free philosophy.  The classic takedown was physicist Alan Sokal’s paper Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, which was accepted and published in the postmodern journal Social Text in 1996.  The editors did not notice that Sokal’s paper was a spoof, possible because logical thinking is a tool of imperialist dead white European males. 

Don:

You really said a mouthful.  Things like “politically motivated stupidity on the left” and “intellectuals of post modernism, and I am supposed to follow your escapade of espoused logic from a biped towards a “Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity!”

Well hell, it makes sense to me as critics tie their panties in a knot over a spoof, and no doubt, I have dead “white” Europeans, that can no longer speak for themselves, so I must speak for them, as my reference.

Don

Peter McGrath

He broke one really important commandement: thou shalt not get found out).

Don:

Haggard lied right out of the gate saying he knows an obvious “myth god” real personal like, so as far as I am concerned, his entire credibility is down hill from that point, as even his sanity is brought into question not knowing reality from fantasy, regarless of sins.

I understand what you said as not being caught, as being sarcastic, in addition, people as Haggard can’t even be honest with themselves, can’t even be true to themselves in their own thinking, whose entire conciseness and reasoning is build on a BIG FAT LIE, and these people are worried about being caught? Hardly, they are already plotting their next game to defraud themselves and others.

Don

Les (11.07.06): Last week was not a good one for several Christian fundies.

Interesting.

It looks like the Ted Haggard scandal will go away now; Ted can get back to his scamming, poofter-bashing and all too common-to-all-fundies, hate-mongering. 

On the face of it, seems this would be evidence that sexual orientation is not innate, or that if it is, it is changeable. 

Or it isn’t and Ted Haggard has simply tried to put himself back in the closest through denial.

That long river in Egypt. 

On the face of it, seems this would be evidence that sexual orientation is not innate, or that if it is, it is changeable

Or possibly he was born gay, but suppressed it due to his upbringing, or is that too difficult for the intellect to comprehend on the illiberal side of the fence.

Or it isn’t and Ted Haggard has simply tried to put himself back in the closest through denial.

That is certainly possible.  At this point though there is no evidence that I’m aware of at this time that would support that supposition.  Accordingly, your statement stands as wild speculation and on its face. 

Mine simply tracks a man’s own statements about his sexuality.  That is something that Brock is always chirping that we should take at face value.

By all means Consi, let’s take Haggard at his word, after all, he has nothing to gain or lose by admitting to being gay. /sarcasm

Please! The man’s a lair and manipulator with no conscience whatsoever. He was outed, he says he got help and, miracle of miracles, he’s now straight again. His miraculous conversion couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his peers, his religion or his ego, right?

I can’t believe you’re holding this man up as an example of successful conversion therapy.

Brock, I get the sense that, for whatever reason, Consi was simply trying to take a cheap shot. Which is disappointing.

Consi writes…

That is certainly possible.  At this point though there is no evidence that I’m aware of at this time that would support that supposition.  Accordingly, your statement stands as wild speculation and on its face.

Actually my statement is based on the fact that there are plenty of people who have been through the same so-called therapy sessions that Haggard went through that are still, surprise, quite gay despite their desires to be otherwise. Combined with the mounting evidence that sexual orientation is in fact inherent in a person. Nothing wild about that speculation at all.

Mine simply tracks a man’s own statements about his sexuality.  That is something that Brock is always chirping that we should take at face value.

Unless, of course, you have good reason to assume he’s a liar and Haggard has given us plenty of good reason to assume he’s lying.

Wait, the treatment is ONLY for being gay? So.,… it’s okay if he’s still a meth addict?

Consi, you’re too optimistic. I’d place bets that 3 weeks is not sufficient time to turn a lifetime of struggle. This goes double if he needed rehabilitation for drug use.

Sadie: Brock, I get the sense that, for whatever reason, Consi was simply trying to take a cheap shot.

You always seem to have Consi figured out. How do you read a mind like his? I always get stuck at the beginning of struggling with his vast intellect.

You always seem to have Consi figured out.

You give me too much credit. Consi’s in a league of his own. 

Consi: On the face of it, seems this would be evidence that sexual orientation is not innate, or that if it is, it is changeable.

Of course it is, Consi; of course it is.
We all know this is your and most xians’ pet theory of how homosexuality comes into being and now here’s ‘proof’ from a man of god.
We all know a man of god would never ever lie so therefore you can now wave this flag of proof under the noses of all poofters; you’ve discovered their secret.
Just one little question, on behalf of all us hetros who can not remember making the decision to become gash-hunters … how old were you when you made the conscious decision you wouldn’t be able to handle the contempt you’d face if you chose to be gay?
After all, it takes a tough man (or woman) to choose a life being the victim of physical and psychological violence doesn’t it?
Like … you’d have to be stupid. Funny, none of the gays I’ve known have been stupid. Maybe they’re stupid if they’re American as well, eh?
According to your theory homos must be a damn sight mentally and physically stronger than us hetros; I think hetros who enjoy vilifying poofters would be uncomfortable with that theory but don’t worry, they’re not bright enough to put those pieces of logic together and therefore won’t take offence. 

Sorry – I overdid the sarcasm, didn’t I? But I thought I’d better tell you cos when someone says:

On the face of it, seems this would be evidence that sexual orientation is not innate, or that if it is, it is changeable.

I just know he’s brain dead and or stupid but I know that’s untrue of you so what am I left with.
Obviously, for some reason, you don’t want to believe ‘god made them like that’ (using a term you’re familiar with) so there’s gotta be something else rattling around.
And, that’s what I and many others would love to know.
What exactly is your theory and logic about how someone arrives from outa the chute as, or otherwise becomes, gay?
Don’t worry – this was a rhetorical rave for my own amusement only but I’ll bet if you comment at all, you’ll not give us your theory in any sensible way, you’ll just pick at insignificant little stuff just like a good lawyer or creationist (“Debate is an art form.) should. 

Sadie: Consi’s in a league of his own.

Yeah. If I followed the KISS principle I’d say:
Consi’s an intelligent man who can’t reconsile the obvious with what he’s been programmed.
But nothing’s ever that simple, is it? 

Consie:On the face of it, seems this would be evidence that sexual orientation is not innate, or that if it is, it is changeable.

Yep.

And wet streets cause rain.....

Les: Actually my statement is based on the fact that there are plenty of people who have been through the same so-called therapy sessions that Haggard went through that are still, surprise, quite gay despite their desires to be otherwise.

The same is equally true with substance abusers. So, should we write off all the addicts?  I think not, nor would you I suspect.  Yet, here you have a double standard.

Brock: I always get stuck at the beginning of struggling with his vast intellect.

You make me smile Brock.  I must confess though that there is no vast intellect here though.  Just a simple farm boy that wanted to pimp you a bit.  You see, simple folk like myself believe that if one standard is good for homosexuals proclaiming that they should be believed regarding their claims that they were born homosexual, then that same standard applies to those that claim they were able to change. One should believe what a man says about his sexuality right?  Unless you want to invoke a double standard.  Is that what you want Brock, a double standard?

Sadie:

Debate is an art form

And you John, are the monkey with the spray can

You see, simple folk like myself believe that if one standard is good for homosexuals proclaiming that they should be believed regarding their claims that they were born homosexual, then that same standard applies to those that claim they were able to change. One should believe what a man says about his sexuality right?  Unless you want to invoke a double standard.  Is that what you want Brock, a double standard?

As Vimes would say “Follow the money”.  Has Faggard got a motivation for declaring he can change?  What made him gay in the first place? I wouldn’t be surprised if he was raised a homophobic, so how come he isn’t (in that sensitive phrase of LJ’s) ‘a gash-hunter’. Does he have a coin he flips every morning? He obviously chose to be a

poofter.

Why?