yayyyyyy God

[Thorgnor]

Right Wing Agenda = religious ideology

:susel:

[SaggyBalls]

I think the 'right wing agenda' surpasses religious ideology, and utilizes religious ideology.

Where are you going with this?

It doesn't really seem to have a place or direction in the whole thread.

You've definitely pieced a lot of things together, but what are you trying to discuss? It doesn't have to be an 'us versus them' thing. We're not members of parliament after all.

I think you probably have a lot of really useful things to say but when the discussion goes from same old same old to positive to not realizing that photo was a mule (i thought it was a horse) to fire and brimstone, I don't really understand what those things are, cause to me most of what you spouted at Birdy was pretty useless.

Now Dude, what can you do with your knowledge to move us past all this silly bickering?

[allison]

because at the heart of religion lies the want to do good and be good, and that should be something to celebrate.

I don't agree with this statement. I think religion starts with a very primordial instinct that is it's heart..the moralizing then wraps around it...sometimes quite beautifully expressed, sometimes quite ugly.That primordial instinct is not a recognition of "good" and evil" but rather "known" and unknown". It is the instinctive understanding that something "other" exists..and religion helps us (perhaps desperatley) unite to it and/or ( perhaps falsely)distance and quarantine the other into something "safer" then free fall.

I respect your intent with the statement though Birdy.

As to d-jango's post...I'm with you.

There is such great beauty in religion, such passion, honour and mystery.Yes, there is the other side that gets discussed (quite rightly) ad nauseum in this thread. I think many of us have a knee jerk reaction to move to humour or cynicism when the topic comes up.But if you stop doing that, can you not sidle up to the heat and heart of religion and see yourself,just a little bit?

Even if you view it this way...

Regardless of whether there is a god or not, religion was made by humanity,made by brothers, sisters, neighbors, strangers..all flesh, all basic beings like yourself.Sometimes twisted to the lowest of our nature, it has also sometimes been a fulcrum on which the most sublime of human endeavour has been brought to pass.But is it not basically a mirror of ourselves as humans, through others, through time and place?

There is beauty.It won't hurt you or blind you, it won't sneak up and steal your reason or intellect..unless you decide for it to do so.

Side note...I would bet that ALOT of people first fell in love with melody, singing, the experience of music..through Christmas songs.Isn't it a loss if you have to sign off on anything that hints or manifests Christianity?

I should say that I am not religious per se...but it does pull at something within.

[Birdy]

Regardless of whether there is a god or not, religion was made by humanity,made by brothers, sisters, neighbors, strangers..all flesh, all basic beings like yourself.Sometimes twisted to the lowest of our nature, it has also sometimes been a fulcrum on which the most sublime of human endeavour has been brought to pass.But is it not basically a mirror of ourselves as humans, through others, through time and place?

Thank you for this perfect little paragraph.

[Thorgnor]

Birdy Said:

because at the heart of religion lies the want to do good and be good, and that should be something to celebrate.

I don't agree with this statement. I think religion starts with a very primordial instinct that is it's heart..the moralizing then wraps around it...sometimes quite beautifully expressed, sometimes quite ugly.That primordial instinct is not a recognition of "good" and evil" but rather "known" and unknown". It is the instinctive understanding that something "other" exists..and religion helps us (perhaps desperatley) unite to it and/or ( perhaps falsely)distance and quarantine the other into something "safer" then free fall.

Could it not be a human process of making "other" out of our environment in order to communicate use and danger? Sacred and profane?

I have been trying to point out the uselessnes of "good vs. bad" dichotomies, I suppose my interweb voice could be more congenial.

Regardless of whether there is a god or not, religion was made by humanity,made by brothers, sisters, neighbors, strangers..all flesh, all basic beings like yourself.Sometimes twisted to the lowest of our nature, it has also sometimes been a fulcrum on which the most sublime of human endeavour has been brought to pass.But is it not basically a mirror of ourselves as humans, through others, through time and place?

Thank you for this perfect little paragraph.

To accept that man made God seems a little radical for most people who do recognize God, although I do feel this way.

However, your reference to a mirror reminds me of why we have turned to a different style of perception in order to forward our understandings of our environment, science. If we stand all day staring into the mirror of ourselves marvelling at how we achieved such heights, do we not only see the landscape that is behind our real body? Is the large object in the middle of the image, ourselves, not a distraction from seeing the entire frame behind us? And what can we know of what sits behind the mirror?

Relgioius stories, if accepted as moral guides created by man to do right by "God", are not binoculars or spying glasses showing us the future. They are like a person staring in a mirror. They examine all behind them, but the most prominent image and the one that demands the most attention is the being doing the gazing. The power of the gaze to shape the ideas found in the mind often alters the images in the mirror, even convincing some that they have the prettiest ideas of them all.

My debate has been concerned with keeping mirrors to a minimum in the courtrooms that decide our futures.

Some others here have openly supported a political party that has transformed a religious ideology into a political one. I fear that the cultural boundaries of their mirrors are too limited to take into account the effects of policies that are quite good looking in their mirrors.

A mirror belongs in your bedroom, or your purse or pocket, not in the House.

Imagine the Commons, a mirror on each desk, and a lack of perspective denying any form of meaningful communication...

My "knowledge" will get you nowhere, YT.

My way to quiet some of this silly bickering would be to shut up I suppose. I am representing a view that isn't in any of those mirrors currently so my voice doesn't really exist unless I stand behind one of the leaders mirrors too?

I suppose it was useless of me to point out that Anarchism and Libertarianism are synonyms for one another? Perhaps I should just call myself a Conservative and continue to push for the nationalization of industry and greater social welfare?

The reason why I have pushed so hard towards Birdy is because she has OPENLY supported a coercive and increasingly prison-happy government. That is neither anarchism nor Liberty. Since she has agreed on these points, I am still left confused about her choices which seem to be based on conservative economic views. The conservative "bootstrap" style economic policies have continually failed yet in times of crisis, Canadians often blindly support the party with the mantle of "fiscal responsibilty". The same kind of fiscal responsibility shown by Flaherty in the Harris government. We're willing to blame Bob Rae for a recession but it's off limits to criticize people's mistake of backing this current government.

I repeat, my knowledge will get you "know-where"?

I like the Toronto Raptors, and I usually hope they win by more than a point because it isn't a decisive way to demonstrate they are the better team at the time. I can't understand voting for a hamstrung parliament where partisan tensions are sure to be inflamed. The history of parliament is that during minority governments we often get little done and the partisan tensions increase. It is paradoxically when the next election is not in sight that parliament actually must work together for the benefit of the nation.

I have been hammering away in an effort to understand how one can support greater militarization, incarceration and policing as someone who claims to love Liberty. And likewise, if people are all good at heart, then why is it wrong to think that socialism can succeed? And further, if one recognizes the benefits of certain socialist ideas how does one support a party that demonstrates "McCarthy" style fears? What I'm saying is that the choice may have seemed logical, but it is no less circular than "mirror, mirror."

If my religion is prettiest...

Mirrors only show us our own image, and we are then free to remake the world through our vision.

And yes Birdy, mirrors do "break".

Mine has been shattered countless times.

It hasn't led me believe that me and my views should just speak up louder, but that they may be "wrong" and I might have to change. I fear that a Conservative party is interested in anything but change, their ideas are by nature traditionalist. They openly consort with geniuses like McVety, how will they ever recognize when they are "wrong"?

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest
Puppies and rainbows make me hungry for dog-meat picinics.

[Birdy]

I have been hammering away in an effort to understand how one can support greater militarization, incarceration and policing as someone who claims to love Liberty. And likewise, if people are all good at heart, then why is it wrong to think that socialism can succeed? And further, if one recognizes the benefits of certain socialist ideas how does one support a party that demonstrates "McCarthy" style fears? What I'm saying is that the choice may have seemed logical, but it is no less circular than "mirror, mirror."

I don't know how many times I have told you TB the things I disliked about the conservative party, and how in how many different words I have put it in how i envision minority governments working together, and outright have said "i voted for a MINORITY conservative government". You continually question why I support militarization, policing and incarceration and i continually tell you I DON'T! Honestly, it's tiring because I'm telling you the same thing, over and over and over and over again and you're attacking me with the same thing over, and over, and over again. Yet you refuse to see it, and you refuse to see the post I deleted, to which you responded, which spelled out quite clearly why I identify more with the right-wing (two-tier approach) and less with the less wing (universal approach). Do you ever let yourself consider that these things would heavily weigh my vote? I supported a MINORITY. Remember that, PLEASE. I have also repeatedly told you I adore individual liberty and yet you find it hard to consider why I think socialism wouldn't work for all. If we all have the potential to be good, we have the potential to do it in different ways. I like the individuality of it all. I've told you this, yet you question me like you can't understand how i wouldn't support socialism.

I'm not to be had for your want of cracking, if that's what you're trying to do. There's bad everywhere TB. You find bad in the Conservatives, i find bad in the NDP, but that doesn't mean I think you're bad, and you don't see me continually bringing this up in thread after thread after thread after thread. There's good in the conservative party too, just as there's good in the NDP.

[Thorgnor]

Good, good, good.

that's good.

Good.

I can't understand voting for a hamstrung parliament where partisan tensions are sure to be inflamed. The history of parliament is that during minority governments we often get little done and the partisan tensions increase. It is paradoxically when the next election is not in sight that parliament actually must work together for the benefit of the nation.

Thank you for removing the record of our conversation.

Well done.

Very good.

carry on.

my bad.

want me to detract from the debate by not allowing anyone to read the history of a logical debate too?

Let's just remove the debate so that no one else learns from it. That's actually very consistent of you.

I've been trying to understand where you're coming from so that I might be able to minimize the differences between our views, I do this through tenuous polarization to demonstrate that the same is done in minority governments. You kept saying I didn't know where you stood, but you didn't explain until I got you mad. Now I know a little better, and you remove the possibility of clarification through a further read and reflection. NOT HELPFUL.

I do admit when I'm wrong, and off base. I have openly declared my reasons and reasoning. I may stand corrected, but I've left them there as evidence of my thought process.

If I hadn't read it would I have been able to cogently respond? Have I been accused of misinterpreting texts? What text?

poof... now I'm definitely right and good, eh?

as long as I delete this post?

again feel free to claim moral victory

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest
I needed to get over myself.

[Birdy]

Yikes... i just reread what I wrote and can barely make sense of that jumbled up mess.

My point is this TB, there are good sides and bad sides to every political party.

You saw my initial post on Sunday, where I explained my views on our social structures in Canada, to which you admitted were sound. What political party in the riding of Chatham-Kent offers me the closest thing to those ideals? I can tell you wholeheartedly it's not the Green Party, not the Libersl and not the NDP.

I have told you that I recognize the hard-right element in the Conservative party and that I don't support their ideals. I don't believe Harper's government does either.

I have told you that I voted for the CP because I knew they'd get a minority, I have also explained elsewhere that I'd never vote for any party that I thought would get a majority. Minority governments have the ability to work together and have the ability to quel these polar extremes, one of which would be the right wing agenda you abhor.

I have explained in numerous posts throughout the years that I identify as a libertarian, but that I also identify as a Canadian and recognize the political climate that we work with and the political climate that has led us to where we are today, and to be your wikipediatic definition of libertarian would probably be catastrophic.

I have told you that I like individual liberty, but I have also explained that I recognize the importance of social structure, and have gone on to explain how i think we could have the most individual liberty within our social structures.

And finally and unfortunately, those who fall on the right side of the political spectrum, really don't have much choice by way of voting. Actually, in my riding, they don't have any choice. That's something to always keep in mind. I am not going to change my entire political philosophy because of one polar extreme and cast a vote for the NDP. What do you want me to do? Not vote? Or vote and continue to try and make things better? I prefer the latter.

And finally, finally, I deleted the record of our conversation because I didn't want to participate it any more. It was not a conversation but a silly back and forth bickering, insult-laden piece of tripe that for the most part made me feel like shit for having taken part in. It's gone as perhaps a symbolic gesture to show that I'm done with it.

In that light, please stop telling me I can claim moral victory. It's the furthest thing I'm trying to do and really, really weakens your points.

Why not just respond in kind to what I wrote, what matters to me, and not what you think should matter more to me?

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest
the finally, finally insert

[Thorgnor]

I want you to keep burning books to get rid of the evil ideas.

I'm actually sorry for wanting to say this but I have to, I am being an asshole.

But at least you will now forever be able to quote me saying so.

This latest post is GREAT... I mean this. Please do not delete it, it is the most cogent reason you've offered so far. I'm actually a little convinced that some of those ideas might work, but I must insist that historically speaking, minority parliament's are shambles. Few have shown much success.

Sorry to rile you up, but you really don't answer my questions otherwise.

[Birdy]

It's okay. I just don't want to have us fly insults back and forth to each other when we could have civilized conversation.

My post above is a recap of what I've said over and over again in countless threads FYI.

You're right, historically minority governments haven't had too much success, but i think we're moving towards a different era where the days of strong majorities are gone, and our politicans are going to be forced to figure out how to work with one another.

What do you mean by "I want you to keep burning books to get rid of the evil ideas"?

[Thorgnor]

erasing what was said in the past because we don't like it... like deleting posts because we look bad...

I know how bad I look sometimes, but it doesn't matter how bad I "look", if I know otherwise.

I've said that people shouldn't take these debates personally, that they are about ideas and our written representations of them. I've never had to say how "fucking awesome" I am to proove my point though. The "moral victory" comments are directly related to this. I don't care that on the surface they seem ridiculous if they expose these useless debate styles, which is why I'm firmly against deleting the ability to move past what has been said. FYI?

?!?!?!?!?!?!?

FYI.

Say one thing...

I just don't want to have us fly insults back and forth to each other when we could have civilized conversation.

Backhanded comments don't help either.

It would be like me telling you to get back to work while I sit here in my bathrobe smoking dope.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

ha!

The fucking awesome comment was totally a defense on my part and i'm sorry. I guess i was feeling that you were trying to portray me as some kind of monster, or less than what I feel I am, so I threw it out there.

At least you'll be able to quote that forever.

I was thinking about how you consider me sensitive to your posts, and how others have said the same thing before, and kinda wonder if it's because i'm a girl, as generally we girls are more sensitive when it comes to this stuff. I'm not providing an excuse, I'm just wondering if that contributes to my sensitivity.

The FYI was in response to you saying my post was the most cogent reasoning i've offered so far. I sat there for a second and thought, 'well, all i really did was recap what I've been saying all along'. I didn't mean it to be a back-handed comment, just a reflection of what I thought upon reading what you wrote.

I'm not finger-pointing at you. I fully accept that I'm guilty of the same thing I accuse you of. I'm no better. I'm just hoping we can both move past it, together.

edit: my deleting of the posts had nothing to do with 'looking bad'. frankly, people on this board have seen me look my worst.

ps. i'm sorry for deleting it if you were going to use it as reflection. I assumed we were both in the mindframe (because I was) that we'd use not the good stuff, but the bad stuff to just continue on down the same path.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[phishtaper]

you two should date

[Birdy]

i get around! first Ollie, now TB.

:blush:

[Thorgnor]

It really isn't because you're a girl for me... I try not to consider that at all, and I don't mean that I'm trying to treat you like a dude either

EDIT; I think I actually remember making a terribly sexist comment towards you and rueing it, didn't delete it though

I've found that political debate hits very close to home, it is what we believe is best for those we love. We tend to take it personally and I said the same thing to d_jango without knowing whether that's a "dude or chick".

I have a really loud internet voice, and I suppose this has been an excercise in being concise and direct without considering the implications. Ironic that that's what I DID accuse you of doing, and it comes back to bite me. I hate puppies.

This whole thing has been ironic for me because I know that we aren't that different in what we hope for and that face-to-face we'd more than likely agree to have fun disagreeing, instead of fighting. A lot of people on the board are probably not suprised that I look like a dick on the web, I often do in real life too. lol

The tone we adopted is exactly what we can expect from our minority government, as long as they play partisan. Unlike us, as distant "friends" who have only met on here, they have nothing to gain from coopoeration that is claimed as a success by the one who has a slight lead, y'know? We benefit from cooperating, they loose political credibility. If the image of our political leaders is disharmonious splintering, we can little expect the citizenry to do better, imo.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

Frankly, we've elevated this thread WAY beyond the Muslim-Phobic bullshit that started it... but it managed to shut that up too, so I'm kinda happy.

I claim victory!

LOL

Damn... nothing's changed. :susel: Oh well.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

wait! a terribly sexist comment? I don't remember...

I hear what you're saying about minority governments and agree. I think though in the foreseeable future no party will force an election and so they won't really have a choice other than to cooperate. And that goes both ways too with Harper and the right wing agenda. He knows that Canadians won't stand for that shit.

Hopefully, once the foreseeable future passes, Canadians will have woken up and voted for electoral reform.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[SaggyBalls]

This really does seem to mirror religion and politics...

Talks about sides working against oneanother, the realization that there are great opportunities for the sides to come together and learn something and help one another, bickering, bringing up points that have little direct value, making up but still failing to compromise or concede when some perspectives on wisdom are more appropriate...

..."My "knowledge" will get you nowhere, YT."

As long as I know you're a Sage of Sages, TB.

[Birdy]

Well, ultimately it boils down to recognizing the legitimacy of differing ideas.

Because if this were a government we'd see progression by way of laws being passed that have the potential to be good, and a give and take to make them better and help them along.

But it's a web forum, so the only measure of progress is that of a smiley face and the dawning that we all want what is good, but we have different ways of getting there. There doesn't exist a need for us to form policy.

Progress is in the peaceful co-existence and the ability to show how all sides are capable of caring.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Guest

[Thorgnor]

very progressive, dog... way to move beyond and elevate the discussion... do you resent the fact that I can actually refer to the root of some ideas to make a point? You didn't seem to have much of a problem with the earlier bigotry in the thread, but you don't like my tone? Speaking of smashing my head into a wall repeatedly, did anyone else see question period today?

wait! a terribly sexist comment? I don't remember...

I hope that wasn't sarcastic...

I think I called you "dear" or "sweetie" or some other totally derogatory, arrogant and condescending, and yet equally reprehensible, thing. I felt like shit when I read it over later, even if I was only trying to be provocative at the time. I'm sorry that I did that.

I'm surprised that you havn't found anything in your own words to learn from, but that rather you would delete them. I'm surprised that my shitty comment slid by without upsetting people, I actually feel very low that I went so far to proove a point. I shattered my credibility with myself for a time. How much was I celebrating diversity if I was acting that way? The mirror, mirror stuff was aimed at myself as well...

But not at you YT, you're perfect just how you are, dear. You didn't notice how little good it does to throw around garbage and insults? Even after real thoughtful responses from both of us? Way to go. You fill me with hope. BTW, "Dude or chick"... I might have to apologize for saying dear again... lol

Where's that wisdom you promised? I'm hungry.

[d_rawk]

Speaking of smashing my head into a wall repeatedly, did anyone else see question period today

Just enough to know that I wanted to stop watching

[Birdy]

I hope that wasn't sarcastic...

I think I called you "dear" or "sweetie" or some other totally derogatory, arrogant and condescending, and yet equally reprehensible, thing. I felt like sh!t when I read it over later, even if I was only trying to be provocative at the time. I'm sorry that I did that.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. And honestly things like that don't bother me, as after all, I am a girl and probably have become somewhat immune to it over the years. No worries.

[Thorgnor]

I'm still sorry...

I'm glad we're... I'm glad that you are past being offended by that stuff, for your own esteem. But to let me slide on saying it kinda supports the idea that it's ok... it's not. Which is why I got so fired up over the Jewish lady post.

Still, I worry that I said it.

onward....

I couldn't watch after the first non-answer, turned the channel and returned a few minutes later, only to hear the same answer to a different question... infuriating.

[phishtaper]

jeesh sweeties, this is turning into a group hug here.

[color:purple]... ok, grrlz are stoopid, christianz are uptight and hippiez stink.

carry on.

[Thorgnor]

you forgot phishtaper is the prettiest.