Author Topic: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate  (Read 546 times)

virtuoso

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #30 on: December 05, 2006, 06:03:16 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, 06:14:40 AM by virtuoso »
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2140
  • Karma: -418
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #31 on: December 05, 2006, 10:39:03 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!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11283
  • Karma: -679
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2006, 11:19:02 AM »
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

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2006, 12:42:37 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

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 333
Re: Atheist Sam Harris Destroys Conservative Talk Show Host in Debate
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2006, 01:16:45 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, 06:25:58 AM by virtuoso »