Author Topic: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate  (Read 402 times)

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2006, 09:37:42 PM »
You need to stop arguing with so much emotion.  The concept of liberty is amoral.  Your emotional complaints about poor people in china bear no relation to this discussion.

Additionally, I don't appreciate the sarcasm because it makes it difficult to respond.  Your posts, as always, are vaguely worded rants.  I have to interpret your position, and then you'll shift it to counter.  It's dishonest to debate in this manner.  I don't think you do it to argue unfairly.  I just think dislike arguing logically.

You see, this happened when you shifted your definition to "global elite's that are intent on creating a one world centralized government."  This helps you cast my worldview in the worst possible light by pretending that I support such people.  This is dishonest since I made it very clear that I considered "elite" to be a broad concept.  But, I'm still not sure what types of elites you find tolerable and what types you think should have their freedoms limited?

Also, you still have not responded to my post. You gave a lot of emotional examples of "elites" hurting people as a justification for limiting their freedom.  You never showed me why your views are not contradictory.  Yet ironically you accuse me of engaging in doublethink. 

These issues need to be addressed:

* You have yet to concede that your analogy between the existence of elites and religion was inappropriate.  It clearly was, and I explained why in my last post.  You wasted many words speaking emotionally when you could have addressed this issue.

* You distorted my argument by ignoring my concluding point.  I never suggested we should make liberty our ultimate goal. I suggested we have to make decisions that limit freedom for the "greater good."  You inappropriately accused me of believing "elites" should be free to hurt others in the population.  What's worse is you wasted your entire post criticizing me for something I never espoused.  In fact I suggested the opposite and believe the opposite.  We need to make difficult decisions about when its correct to limit freedoms.  But unlike yourself, I understand that these are difficult decisions to make. 

* You still need to define who you consider elites.  I gave examples you could start by answering yes or no to these.  I have a feeling your definition is much broader than the one used in the last post.  I could get myself into trouble here, but it seems like you wish to limit the freedoms of many types of people that you dislike.

* You need to explain how I engaged in doublethink.  You never did.

I want to remind you that this debate started when you tried to argue that the world would be a better place without "elites."  I rightly pointed out that your tendency to dislike elites is an example of your often conflicting worldview.  I may be at fault for jumping the gun and trying to debate you before you clearly defined what you meant by "elite."  Still a logical conclusion is that its inconsistent to say you want to increase liberty, but you want to reduce the liberty of people you dislike.

Even if certain people are "evil" when you suggest we need to limit the freedoms of these people your advocating that we limit freedom.  There is nothing wrong with this.  In fact most people believe we should limit freedom. 

Where most people differ is on the extent to which we should limit freedom and how we should do so.  You contradict yourself by claiming to be strongly pro-liberty when you are not. Based on many past statements its clear that you believe we need to limit liberty/freedoms in many ways. Your true ideology does not agree with the libertarian ideology you claim to support.  Libertarians accept placing limits on liberty too, but they think we should be very careful in making these decisions.  On the other hand, you frequently make statements that suggest you'd carelessly limit many types of freedoms. 

It's also a contradiction when you say you dislike elites.  You do not.  You just wish the elites were more like yourself, then they would be acceptable.



« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 12:35:49 AM by Ant »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2006, 02:53:31 AM »
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite?  Is the catholic pope?

Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an elitist, a global elitist can be identified by the membership to organisations such as the trilaterial commission, the bildabergs, the CFR etc. Therefore it has very little to do with wealth either, someone could have a personal fortune of 500mill that in itself does not say they are a global elitist. Some academics are members of these globalist movements, as are some politicians. Now ...regarding the pope hell yes he has explicitly called for a new world order before, even CNN covered that one.

You plainly ignored what I said the elite as I put it are the global elite, control freaks who want to see the whole world under one unified body so they have total and utter control, now to most people such a notion is downright terrifying and goes against everything including liberty. Unless of course you are suggesting that well all teachers, all academics all rich people want that which as you know is total bs. You said that to not want totalitarianism means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarianism, wtf no you don't understand the autonomy has been swept away illegally, it defies the constitution, it makes a mockery of human rights and it places everyone perilously close to being slaves. I don't think you seem to realise that this surrenderence of power is actually treasonous in some cases so no this has nothing to another form of totalitarianism and everything to do with justice. Yet you were trying to spin this to say oh you so you are against the limiting of freedoms for individuals like I said that is complete double think.

Of course I am going to cite the examples of China or living under the soviet union block. I still don't think you grasp this human rights are your inaleable rights that is what the constitution recognises and that is what common law recognises. For you to say that such a stance is a rant or incoherent is bemusing and frankly disturbing, it's like everytime another bill comes in which sweeps away yet more civil liberties you are creating a new reality for yourself one in which everything becomes normalised, a "realist" as you put it. Do you not understand that the creation of an E.U superstate was not democratic was not free and fair, it was initially started on the premise that it would be a free trading block and then slowly it led to more calls for co-operation and then oh i think we should harmonise this, harmonise thatm meanwhile denying that a superstate was being formed while constructing it under plain view.

So basically fuck this idea that religion is to blame, yes it plays a part but international bankers and other global elites are the real enemy. By the way I do not think I am so damn intelligent but what I do is read, I understand common law I understand the magna carta. I have read many of the euroopean unions own documents. I have read many of the globalists own documents, when they are letting you know what they are going to do.  After all you do realise that plans are underway to "normalise" the north american union by merging canada mexico and america under one currency the amero to "combat" the euro. No this is not an assumption, look at your dollar and it's actual worth now, it's not a short term trend the plummeting of the dollar, I am sure it will rise again slightly and then the media can hit you with some spin about the "dollar continuing its rise" but month after month it is plummeting and the currency will be totally abandoned soon then you will know what financial imprisonment is. Financial imprisonment means as in the case of the euro that there is literally no way out of it, Italy made noises it wanted to pull out and it was told in no uncertain terms you have no escape exit.

It's worth noting that the notion of a one world government one world religion one world economic system has always been denied, played down or frankly the individual has been labelled the ad hominim "conspiracy theorist" Yet it's not as if the idea in itself was bizarre that is exactly what the communist manifesto itself calls for, I have had the misfortune to read that horrible document they don't believe in nationality, or states thus ultimately no domestic government. i know how you will react to this last paragraph by pointing towards Chavez being a socialist and you would have a valid point if he slowly moves his feet towards embracing the union, then such a point will be merited. Frankly I really do not care if you try and deny or play down the validity of this response you can deny reality all you want it's still reality. Like I said I look forward to reading your responses after watching america from freedom to facism about how it's a "conspiracy theory". It's funny when you watched "the economist with a phd" you were never able to say what it was he said that was wrong, all you could say was well anyone can hold a phd.

Edit*I just noticed you say the concept of liberty is amoral, where the hell do you get this from, the whole pupose of civil liberties is to protect the citizen from the state and under both the u.s and the british constitution these are your inalieable rights. These civil liberties are there to protect the citizen from state oppression. I really do not think you grasp this at all.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 09:45:42 AM by virtuoso »
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2006, 06:07:26 PM »
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite?  Is the catholic pope?

Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an elitist, a global elitist can be identified by the membership to organisations such as the trilaterial commission, the bildabergs, the CFR etc. Therefore it has very little to do with wealth either, someone could have a personal fortune of 500mill that in itself does not say they are a global elitist. Some academics are members of these globalist movements, as are some politicians. Now ...regarding the pope hell yes he has explicitly called for a new world order before, even CNN covered that one.

Do you understand that this is your definition?  You sound like your yelling at me for defining elite differently.  You're at fault for not clearly explaining yourself - not me for being unable to "know" what exactly you meant.  I assumed you meant "elite" as defined by modern dictionaries.  And was understanding enough to guess that perhaps you meant differently.  But don't blast me for you inability to properly communicate.  That's just ridiculous.  By all means, we can use this definition now that I know what you're talking about tho. 

You plainly ignored what I said the elite as I put it are the global elite,

That's nonsense.  I clearly afforded you to the opportunity to "define" elite.  You initially just said "without elites the world would be a better place."  I very clearly mentioned that this statement was vague and needed to be clarified.  How you can possibly claim this is beyond me.  I'm the one that asked you to clarify what you meant.

control freaks who want to see the whole world under one unified body so they have total and utter control, now to most people such a notion is downright terrifying and goes against everything including liberty. Unless of course you are suggesting that well all teachers, all academics all rich people want that which as you know is total bs.

No shit that is totally BS.  That's why I never suggested such a thing, so what the fuck are you trying to say?  As I said very cleary... this is why I took offense to you initial statement and asked for clarification.  You said "the world would be better off without elites."  I assumed you initially were properly using the word "elite."  When in fact you were not.  Of course I was the one that was reasonable enough to ask for you to clarify in case you were inappropriately using the term. 

You said that to not want totalitarianism means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarianism, wtf no you don't understand the autonomy has been swept away illegally, it defies the constitution, it makes a mockery of human rights and it places everyone perilously close to being slaves. I don't think you seem to realise that this surrenderence of power is actually treasonous in some cases so no this has nothing to another form of totalitarianism and everything to do with justice. Yet you were trying to spin this to say oh you so you are against the limiting of freedoms for individuals like I said that is complete double think.

This was not coherently written.  Stop using so many assumptions and so much emotion in your post.  And please learn to avoid run on sentences.  I don't need to read your entire jumbled thought process.

Of course I am going to cite the examples of China or living under the soviet union block. I still don't think you grasp this human rights are your inaleable rights that is what the constitution recognises and that is what common law recognises. For you to say that such a stance is a rant or incoherent is bemusing and frankly disturbing, it's like everytime another bill comes in which sweeps away yet more civil liberties you are creating a new reality for yourself one in which everything becomes normalised, a "realist" as you put it. Do you not understand that the creation of an E.U superstate was not democratic was not free and fair, it was initially started on the premise that it would be a free trading block and then slowly it led to more calls for co-operation and then oh i think we should harmonise this, harmonise thatm meanwhile denying that a superstate was being formed while constructing it under plain view.

Again, I am not discussing any of this crap.  I am for ideas that help society and against those that hurt them in a general sense.  But examples bear no relation to my argument.  You just want to cite them because you think this emotional drivel makes you stance more relevant.  It does not.

So basically fuck this idea that religion is to blame, yes it plays a part but international bankers and other global elites are the real enemy.  By the way I do not think I am so damn intelligent but what I do is read, I understand common law I understand the magna carta. I have read many of the euroopean unions own documents. I have read many of the globalists own documents, when they are letting you know what they are going to do.  After all you do realise that plans are underway to "normalise" the north american union by merging canada mexico and america under one currency the amero to "combat" the euro. No this is not an assumption, look at your dollar and it's actual worth now, it's not a short term trend the plummeting of the dollar, I am sure it will rise again slightly and then the media can hit you with some spin about the "dollar continuing its rise" but month after month it is plummeting and the currency will be totally abandoned soon then you will know what financial imprisonment is. Financial imprisonment means as in the case of the euro that there is literally no way out of it, Italy made noises it wanted to pull out and it was told in no uncertain terms you have no escape exit.

It's worth noting that the notion of a one world government one world religion one world economic system has always been denied, played down or frankly the individual has been labelled the ad hominim "conspiracy theorist" Yet it's not as if the idea in itself was bizarre that is exactly what the communist manifesto itself calls for, I have had the misfortune to read that horrible document they don't believe in nationality, or states thus ultimately no domestic government. i know how you will react to this last paragraph by pointing towards Chavez being a socialist and you would have a valid point if he slowly moves his feet towards embracing the union, then such a point will be merited. Frankly I really do not care if you try and deny or play down the validity of this response you can deny reality all you want it's still reality. Like I said I look forward to reading your responses after watching america from freedom to facism about how it's a "conspiracy theory". It's funny when you watched "the economist with a phd" you were never able to say what it was he said that was wrong, all you could say was well anyone can hold a phd.

This is not about our discussion.  Stop fucking ranting.

Edit*I just noticed you say the concept of liberty is amoral, where the hell do you get this from, the whole pupose of civil liberties is to protect the citizen from the state and under both the u.s and the british constitution these are your inalieable rights. These civil liberties are there to protect the citizen from state oppression. I really do not think you grasp this at all.

The concept of liberty is amoral.  Here is the difference... hopefully you can understand:

Morality is your system of principles regarding right or wrong conduct.  "Civil liberties" are moral concepts.  We define them and they in turn define part of our morality.

When you choose what "civil liberties" are "important" you're defining your morality.

But liberty is just a thing.  You don't get choose what liberty is.  Liberty is just the "state of being free."  Your opinion towards liberty is "moral."  But the liberty itself is amoral.   When you say people should have x,y,z freedoms that is a MORAL JUDGMENT.  But freedom itself is not moral.  There is no moral judgment involved in defining a word.

For example,

A "chair" is "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person."  Chairs are amoral.  If you were to say "everyone has a right to possess at least one chair." That is moral.

"Liberty" is "the state of being free."  Liberty is amoral.  If you say "everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That is moral.  Likewise if you say "everyone should surrender themselves to the will of the state."  That is moral.  But liberty by itself is not moral.   

Do you understand?

---

Also you are being dishonest when you suggest you only want to limit the freedoms of "global elites."  You've suggested many times in the past that you want to limit the freedoms of other groups you dislike.  For example, increasing the min. wage limits the freedom of many groups.  It limits the freedoms of unemployed workers to accept a job at a lower wage.  It limits the freedom of employers to offer the wages they wish. 

You also support Chavez nationalization of industry.  This is another anti-liberty idea.  Your supporting Chavez's right to steal the freedoms of others.  This is why I say you support increasing the freedoms of people you like, and decreasing the freedoms of people you dislike.  You like Chavez so we can unfairly allow him to increase his own freedoms.  You dislike business, so its acceptable for him to decrease their freedoms.  For example, another decision he made was to regulate the air travel industry.  Only Venezuelan airlines can fly in and out of Venezuela regularly.

This is another example of people with twisted logic increasing the freedom of their friends while decreasing the freedom of those they dislike.  Chavez dislikes foreign companies so they can't serve his population.  He likes his buddies so they have the right to monopolize the marketplace.

Being against free trade is anti-liberty too.  You support freedom of people to enrich those they like and punish those they dislike.  In a completely "free" world anyone could trade with anyone else. That's why its called "free" trade.  When you say you support nationalism you're saying you support giving freedom/power to people you like, and allowing them to limit the freedoms of others.  This is why nationalism and libertarianism are incompatible. 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 06:18:40 PM by Ant »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2006, 06:30:12 PM »
Civil liberties are clearly defined, they are written into the constitution. i am against as everyone else should flushing those civil liberties down the toilet. That is treasonous, that is dangerous and it clearly shows the agenda. The free trade is just a facade as well you know, all it does in actual fact is empower corporations, any political commentator will concede that.. You said I am going off track and yet you use this opportunity to say I am against liberty because I support a minimum wage, I could say you are against liberty because you support globalisation, because it empowers the elite further and weakens strong nations. Neither of them are true I am not against liberty for supporting a minimum wage and neither are you for supporting globalisation. It is how you view such issues, whereas basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, like freedom of expression, like habeus corpus, like the integrity of the constitution can not be debated as in they are being taken and there is nothing positive about that. So again where the hell are you coming from? you are the same person who can't get his head around the fact that the democrats are not going to repeal the military commission act, nor the patriot act, nor the military authorisations bill and dozens of other horrifying violations of human rights. This is much worse than what religion is or isn't doing, it's worth noting that Britain is more or less a secularist state and yet that hasn't stopped oppression, The comparisons between here and stasiland becoming more and more noticeable every passing week. The sooner you can get your head around the fact that the republican party and the democrats are playing good cop bad cop the sooner you will understand that religion is a side issue. However again I am done with this topic, no one else is replying and there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion.

You said that to oppose a totalitarian world means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarian thinking. That is truly twisted logic I do not want to create something which is not there. Wanting to uphold the constitution and common law has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism and EVERYTHING to do with civil liberties you just don't give a crap, or you just normalise it. Consitution..... what constitution? By the way the reason why there are so many hit pieces put on Chavez is because he is one of the rogue states i.e. the country is not run by a private banking institution and he releases more oil "than he should" he is viewed with anger.

« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 07:15:16 PM by virtuoso »
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2006, 07:50:32 PM »
Civil liberties are clearly defined, they are written into the constitution.
What was the point of this comment?  Of course they are defined by the constitution. But they are also defined differently by different constitutions. The concept of a "civil liberty" is a social construct.  They're a subjective ideas.  For example, the "right to bear arms" is not a universally accepted civil liberty. In fact the concept of "civil liberty" is not even universally accepted. Tribal societies exist without civil liberties.

i am against as everyone else should flushing those civil liberties down the toilet. That is treasonous, that is dangerous and it clearly shows the agenda.

I think civil liberties are a good thing too, but your thinking is wrong again.  It's only treasonous to "flush civil liberties down the toilet" in societies that define it as such.  Certain societies don't even have civil liberties.  Each country's legal system define was is treasonous you do not get to do so from the side lines.  In fact an authoritarian government it's treasonous to advocate for the existence civil liberties.  Please don't be so childish as to write a post haranguing me for supporting authoritarianism.  I'm just pointing out your incoherent logic.

The free trade is just a facade as well you know

No I don't know.  Protectionism IMO is a facade to protect special interests.  Of course I'll concede that is my opinion... but as always, my opinion has far more reasonable support than yours.

all it does in actual fact is empower corporations, any political commentator will concede that.

These certainties are getting ridiculous.  Free trade does more than just "empower corporations" whatever that means... (yet another example of you opposing the freedoms of people you dislike).  And any political commentator will NOT concede that.  That's just a silly statement.  Many well-intentioned individuals have fought to promote free trade because of its beneficial effects for the global population.  These people include Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, David Ricardo, and every nobel prize winning economist to my knowledge supports free trade.  But regardless... even if free trade is "evil" which it isn't.  It's still anti-liberty to oppose it.  Again, liberty is an amoral concept.  When you limit liberty for the "greater good" you are still limiting freedom.

For example, putting people in jail is anti-liberty, but its done for the "greater good" and in most cases I think its a reasonable idea.  But this is something you still do not grasp.  This example is more clear when you consider GWB's treatment of those he considers "evil." Just like yourself GWB wants to limit the freedom of people he considers "evil."  But he doesn't get to say "I'm not limiting freedom... these people are evil!"  Instead the right-wing pundits rationalize: "we have to limit some freedoms to protect others."  You are saying the exact same thing. You want to limit the freedoms of the "evil" to help to "good."

Unlike yourself true libertarians are extremely cautious about limiting freedom.  While you want to carelessly limit all sorts of freedoms because you believe you have ultimate truth.  In a sense, you think yourself to be Plato's "philosopher king" - you're that unique individual that can decide everything and make the world a better place.   

You said I am going off track and yet you use this opportunity to say I am against liberty because I support a minimum wage

Yes I've been consistenly trying to explain to you why you are not pro-liberty.  I have to use examples to do that.

I could say you are against liberty because you support globalisation

You could but you'd be mostly wrong.  In fact I've already conceding I am against some forms of liberty.  You seem to think you aren't against any limits on freedom.  As I've already said, the difference is the extent to which we each wish to limit freedom.  You wish to limit it to a much greater extent than I do.  That's why your wrong to claim you are libertarian. 

It is how you view such issues whereas basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, like freedom of expression, like habeus corpus, like the integrity of the constitution can not be debated.

Civil liberties and liberty are two different things.  Liberty is "the state of being free."  Civil liberties are a set of specific freedoms a society agreed upon and codified.  But just like anything else they can be debated.  It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.  For example, do you think its inappropriate to debate the "right of anyone to own a AK-47?" I think its completely reasonable to do such a thing.

So again where the hell are you coming from? you are the same person who can't get his head around the fact that the democrats are not going to repeal the military commission act, nor the patriot act, nor the military authorisations bill and dozens of other horrifying violations of human rights. This is much worse than what religion is or isn't doing, it's worth noting that Britain is more or less a secularist state and yet that hasn't stopped oppression, The comparisons between here and stasiland becoming more and more noticeable every passing week. The sooner you can get your head around the fact that the republican party and the democrats are playing good cop bad cop the sooner you will understand that religion is a side issue.

I never suggested religion is the "main issue."  All I said was religion is a) not true b) responsible for some bad things that happen in the world.  Whether or not there should be a global crusade to end all religion is not something I'm really concerned with.  I'd prefer the world without religion, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.  I also never said there aren't other issues we should tackle other than religion, nor did I suggest that the world would be perfect without religion, nor did I say that I'm certain the world would be better without religion.  I said I'm inclined to believe it would be, but I conceded it's debatable.

However again I am done with this topic, no one else is replying and there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion.

Where have I done either of these things?  I don't know what exactly your reading. I'm deeply troubled by things like the patriot act and am strongly opposed to the idea of eliminating civil liberties.  I think its wrong to sacrifice liberty for "safety" and sincerely hope the US reconsiders its desire to do so.

You said that to oppose a totalitarian world means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarian thinking.

No I said that your desire to limit the freedoms of people you dislike is akin to supporting totalitarianism.  In fact you come very close to it in your support of Chavez.  Who uses his power of office to steal other people's assets, limit their freedom, increase his own power, and help himself retain office.  But you are okay with this because you "like" Chavez... were someone you dislike to do this you'd be upset.  Again, you're very much anti-liberty... you repeatedly show that you believe yourself to be the ultimate judge of who deserves to be free and who doesn't.  You like Chavez so he deserves more freedom.  You dislike business owners so they deserve less.   GWB does essentially the same thing.  He wants to choose who deserves more freedom and who deserves less.

But true libertarians understand the liberty is amoral.  We can't easily increase liberty by sacrificing the freedom of others.  Sometimes we have to cautiously limit freedoms for the greater good, but you want to carelessly limit freedoms of people just because you think they are evil.

--

Finally feel free to run away from this post.  But again you make no sense.  You want to come here to "debate" but when you find one you run away.  Then you make up childish rationalizations to make yourself feel better for doing so.  No wonder you believe such silly ideas.  When people challenge you, you just dismiss them and run. 



« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 08:02:48 PM by Ant »
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2006, 07:03:16 AM »

I am not running from any debate if you re-read what my last post actually said then you can clearly see I questioned the point of replying to a thread where no one else is putting forth their views anymore aside from you. I am pressed for time right now but I do actually want to respond to something you have said I never suggested that all socieities have civil liberties, you see unlike most of the western world both Britain's and Americas are seen by the respective constitutions as being inalieable rights, whereas this is not so in most countries. Your civil liberties/human rights are clearly defined in the bill of rights therefore any attempt to undermine or get rid of these rights is a violation of your rights they are not subjective they are inaliable as is clearly stated any attempts to nullify the sovereignty of the nations are treasonous. To underline just how horrific the weathering away of sovereignty is, it's documented fact that 80% of britain's laws are not even decided within britain therefore the public displays of debate are a sham, they can discuss a bill but they can not change the will of the european union. When such power is surrendered from dozens of countries it creates a colosall all powerful central government beyond the government. This is much more dangerous than any religion is, as you should be well aware by now muslims have been demonised to create this perception of a dark enemy who could strike at any time, when in fact for a lot of muslims I have spoken to they say it is the preachings which are keeping most muslims peaceful. Another obvious example... christian evangelicals are being preached blatant lies, in respect of the actual bible. Now compare religion to this to power the north american union, the european union and the asian union. All globalisation has done is weakened any of the more "free" " on earth, slowly destroyed the middle class to make these nations dependent, ensalved the populations financially by driving the wages down and made the elite more powerful. That is my opinion of course but I only have to look at an issue like manufacturing to cite an example where real wealth has been driven out of the country and which has left many areas of this countries desperately poor. My poiint is that the ever growing power of the elites is a deeply more disturbing issue than Allah.

Steals other peoples assets? curtails the peoples freedoms, this is where you deliberately attempt to muddy the waters again I know that when transport infrastructure is being built it is funded by a large proportion of public money as well as private. Curtailing the peoples freedoms? what freedoms of the venezeulan people is he curtailing. As soon as Chavez embraces a federal reserve he will quickly be left off alone believe me, you won't have continuous hit pieces on him so you to will forget about him.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2006, 07:14:40 AM by virtuoso »
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2006, 11:39:03 AM »
I am not running from any debate if you re-read what my last post actually said then you can clearly see I questioned the point of replying to a thread where no one else is putting forth their views anymore aside from you.

Remember I said you had to "rationalize to make yourself feel better."  I.E. you're not running from the debate, it's just that no one else is involved.  That's a poor excuse. 

But that's not what you said initially... you also said "there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion."

Which was entirely untrue.  I showed it as such, and you have yet to concede anything.  I know its not easy to say "I'm wrong."  But hopefully you learned something about your own fallibility from this discussion if nothing else.

I am pressed for time right now but I do actually want to respond to something you have said I never suggested that all socieities have civil liberties, you see unlike most of the western world both Britain's and Americas are seen by the respective constitutions as being inalieable rights, whereas this is not so in most countries. Your civil liberties/human rights are clearly defined in the bill of rights therefore any attempt to undermine or get rid of these rights is a violation of your rights they are not subjective they are inaliable as is clearly stated any attempts to nullify the sovereignty of the nations are treasonous.

They are certainly subjective.  Do you know the meaning of the word?  They were agreed upon subjectively and then written into the constitution and the bill of rights.  Are you seriously suggesting the "right to bear arms" is not a subjective idea?  Constitutions and Bill of Rights represent that opinions of their authors.  This is undeniable.

In fact most civil liberties are not "inalienable" rights.  Go look up what that word means to since you neither understand it nor do you understand subjective.  In fact its the subjective opinion of our founding fathers, and also your subjective opinion that certain rights are "inalienable."

Inalienable means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred."  Again, are you going to seriously argue that the "right to bear arms" is "inalienable."  Of course it isn't.  But certain people "think" it is.  That's why the constitution is a "subjective" document.  It can't be anything else.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold the constitution, but let's call things as they are.
 
To underline just how horrific the weathering away of sovereignty is, it's documented fact that 80% of britain's laws are not even decided within britain therefore the public displays of debate are a sham, they can discuss a bill but they can not change the will of the european union. When such power is surrendered from dozens of countries it creates a colosall all powerful central government beyond the government. This is much more dangerous than any religion is, as you should be well aware by now muslims have been demonised to create this perception of a dark enemy who could strike at any time, when in fact for a lot of muslims I have spoken to they say it is the preachings which are keeping most muslims peaceful. Another obvious example... christian evangelicals are being preached blatant lies, in respect of the actual bible. Now compare religion to this to power the north american union, the european union and the asian union. All globalisation has done is weakened any of the more "free" " on earth, slowly destroyed the middle class to make these nations dependent, ensalved the populations financially by driving the wages down and made the elite more powerful. That is my opinion of course but I only have to look at an issue like manufacturing to cite an example where real wealth has been driven out of the country and which has left many areas of this countries desperately poor. My poiint is that the ever growing power of the elites is a deeply more disturbing issue than Allah.

I'm glad you claimed this is just opinion because it is.  This is another topic, and I'm not done with this one yet.  I'm also not going to argue against facts like "I spoke to people I know and they say..." or "I don't know anything about economics, but I just had to look at manufacturing to know...."  If you want to discuss these issues later fine, but please refrain from pretending your subjective ideas are facts.

Steals other peoples assets? curtails the peoples freedoms, this is where you deliberately attempt to muddy the waters again I know that when transport infrastructure is being built it is funded by a large proportion of public money as well as private. Curtailing the peoples freedoms? what freedoms of the venezeulan people is he curtailing. As soon as Chavez embraces a federal reserve he will quickly be left off alone believe me, you won't have continuous hit pieces on him so you to will forget about him.

I am not muddying the waters.  When you nationalize industry you steal assets from other people for yourself.  Chavez stole oil assets to help himself.  He now freely spends those assets to solidify political support and people like you fall for it.

Giving away oil at below market prices is not helping his country.  He is using it to buy support.  This policy is amazingly anti-liberty, yet you support it.  I can tolerate someone arguing that its acceptable to nationalize certain industries (esp. one's that are related to natural resources).  But when he starts giving away oil at below market prices its very clear he is being politically manipulative.  And in fact has stolen the assets of other people for his own benefit.  If he was more genuine he'd sell the oil at its acceptable price.  What's more ironic, is that I'll bet your an environmentalist too... actually so am I.  This type of policy is not only anti-liberty, but its also anti-environment.

He's doing the same thing with the air industry.  He is curtailing the freedom of his people to travel using foreign airlines.  This was a major frustration for the Venezuelan people when I spoke to them.  It's difficult to travel in and out of the country.  Chavez decided to limit the freedom of foreign companies to compete with the Venezuelan firms.  In doing so he not only curtailed the freedom of the foreign firms, but also limited the freedom of his own people.   And its more obnoxious because these policies are basically special interest favoritism.   Apparently in your world, monopolies are bad, unless they're intentionally created by dictators that you like.  And yes Chavez is very close to being a dictator. 

How can another candidate compete with someone that is using his power of office to solidify support?  But this is acceptable to you because you like Chavez.  Imagine if Bush nationalized our natural resources and started giving them away to his buddies.  Or what if he made a law that said American's can only buy from firms he finds acceptable?  You'd be upset, as would I, but with Chavez its okay. 

As I've said many times.  You essentially want to limit the freedoms of people you dislike and increase the freedoms of those you like. 

















 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2006, 12:19:02 PM »
In the meantime, can I ask what you're talking about now  ???
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2006, 01:42:37 PM »

Lol well I basically said that the real threat was not from religion it was from the global elite who are decimitating the sovereignty of nations and the rest is history
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2006, 02:16:45 AM »

The whole purpose of the constitution was to limit a governments power by creating a list of guarantees that every citizen has the right to. Whenever a new government is sworn in, they are sworn to uphold the constitution. Therefore for you to state that the right to bear arms is somehow subjective is a downright lie when it is clearly defined within the bill of rights, which is afterall an integral part of the constitution. This underlines a previous  point, those who approved the military commissions bill commited treason because the bill violates all but one of the amendments and hence it is the many criminal politicians who are much greater danger to the world than any religious faction, following or person.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 07:25:58 AM by virtuoso »