I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Archaeopteryx]

The correct equation reads: stealing money from the producers = weaker economy = less jobs = increased government dependency = increased slothfulness = indolence and general unrest = "we need more socialism" = no more private property = we're all part of a collective that knows better than we do what's best = 1984 = godlessness.

You've made quite a few leaps of faith there. First of all, what is a 'producer'? If you define it as anyone in the economy who produces something then you are talking about workers. It is clear that not all workers produce the same amount, and not all workers are equally compensated for what they produce. But most workers have some portion of their profits extracted so as to fund the government. You are claiming that this leads to a weaker economy, and then less jobs, increased dependency, Etc, etc. But what you haven't shown is how. How exactly does a weaker economy follow from this?

If someone wants to live in the trees at a university to "Protect" the environment, that's fine, but we shouldn't have to foot the bill for their "causes."

Environmental causes are important because the natural world belongs to all of us and to our posterity who will inherit it.

I don't hate a lot of things, but I hate the entitlement mentality that plagues this nation.

(God for give me for my ire and wrath toward these people, ie liberal wastrels).

'Liberal wastrels'? Define the term Zongerfield...

I don't feel that we should be forced to pay for others, liberal wastrels.

But you already do pay for others... You pay for their defence, their police protection, the roads they drive on, Etc. Are all these people 'liberal wastrels' and 'moocher's' too?

When we are forced to help people due to government mandates and entitlement programs, we are not helping them at all. We are reinforcing their moocher;s mentality.

Is that how you view welfare recipients? As 'moocher's'? There is an interesting article by Elizabeth Anderson in Philosophy and Public Affairs that refutes many of the myths that people hold regarding welfare recipients and their desire to work. Recommend you take a look before accusing them of 'moocher's mentality'.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

She never said "let them eat cake" (While the phrase is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette,[2] there is no record of these words ever having been uttered by her.)

This is indeed correct. The same words were (falsely) attributed to another member of the nobility almost a century earlier.

HOWEVER, even though Marie Antoinette never used these words, her lifestyle pretty much amounted to the same. The French aristocracy was glutting itself on the produce of the poor, while living conditions of the non-elite were deteriorating to the point where people could see no other way but to rise up. Sadly, the resulting power vacuum was filled by the most ruthless individuals, as always.

Stealing from the rich to feed the poor creates laziness and dependency on government entitlements.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between theft and letting each member of society contribute to the welfare of the same according to their ability to do so - well, it speaks volumes. If a society cannot take care of its own - then basically, there is no society at all. Just a bunch of dog-eat-dog individuals looking no further than their own coffers, and to hell with all the rest. Even now, you can see the American elites re-creating the conditions we saw in France, retreating to gated communities and closing their eyes to what happens beyond their walled-in estates.

As I said, things don't work that way. One of the primary reasons behind the downfall of civilizations has always been a widening gap between a small elite and the disenfranchised masses. Ironically, this is even true of systems like the USSR, where high-ranking party members drove luxury cars and lived in sprawling mansions while the workers who were publicly declared the most important part of society lived in utter abjection.

The correct equation reads: stealing money from the producers = weaker economy = less jobs = increased government dependency = increased slothfulness = indolence and general unrest = "we need more socialism" = no more private property = we're all part of a collective that knows better than we do what's best = 1984 = godlessness.

Bankers, stockholders and major corporations are stealing MASSIVE amounts of money from the producers as we speak. The people who actually *produce* our crops, our coffee, our cotton, the raw materials for our electronic gadgets and the gadgets themselves - they aren't the one who grow rich. Quite the contrary.

In the current system, it's the middlemen who make all the money. Bankers, stock brokers, executive consultants...

As for jobs disappearing: corporations have long since figured out that they needn't show any loyalty to the society they live in, and outsourced their facilities to some third-world country where you can shamelessly exploit your employees even further and they'll still be thankful for it. Simultaneously, they move their official headquarters offshore, so they won't even have to pay taxes to sustain the society that sustains them.

I agree that handing out money doesn't SOLVE any problems: it just alleviates the symptoms of corporate greed, keeping its victims from starving. Personally, I'd rather risk subsidizing a few freeloader ingrates to keep those who've fallen on hard times from utter ruin than to hand out billions of dollars to some bank that's speculated itself into a corner, and now wants society at large to pay for its mistakes (while naturally keeping all the profits to itself, both before and afterwards).

If someone wants to live in the trees at a university to "Protect" the environment, that's fine, but we shouldn't have to foot the bill for their "causes."

That position is so unbelievably stupid! NEWSFLASH: you're part of an ecosystem, Zongerfield! Allow me to dumb it down as much as possible so you can see what's going on: if you dump your waste into the local well, it'll come back to haunt you in the form of nasty diseases and parasites. And if you turn the whole forest into logs at once, there won't be any forest left the next time you need new wood.

 

[TheReasoner]

I thought I sufficiently answered your questions. I favor entitlement cuts because they were not originally outlined in our Constitution. Where is Obamacare listed?

I don't feel that we should be forced to pay for others, liberal wastrels. I help people, I've already told you about Walt - which should speak volumes of my compassion to help and heal others with serious afflictions, not because I have to or because the government makes me, but because that's what Christ wants.

When we are forced to help people due to government mandates and entitlement programs, we are not helping them at all. We are reinforcing their moocher;s mentality.

You cut entitlement programs, welfare, medicaid, unemployment benefits, etc... you'll see a rise in the number of people willing to work. It won't just be illegals working in the strawberry fields.

I've held many jobs throughout my life. I work several now. I have been poorer than poor. I've gone several days without eating. But at the end of the day, I put faith in God, and everything turns out alright.

Bless those who work for a living. Let those who live in trees by universities reap what they sow.

Zongerfield: So you believe yourself wiser than the bible? It is quite clear on this. Did you not see the verses I posted earlier? Some of those are aimed directly at rulers.

Also, if you are right, how come my own country as an example went from one of Europe's poorest nations then - as a direct result of the policies you are fighting - has ended up the highest ranking country on the HDI and very very high median personal wealth.
Now, this will change as the political direction goes further right. Every time we've leaned right politically the same has happened here that has happened in the states: Recession. The poor suffer. The rich get richer.

You say you don't want the rich to suffer because they have to take responsibility in their society. I ask you: How can you justify that as a Christian? I suppose it's easier than death penalty for millions, but I do not see any justification for your position. Not historical, not current, not biblical either. My own country's history runs directly opposite what you claim it must have done to achieve wealth. One could easily say that the wealth we now enjoy is precisely because we followed Jesus' words to care for one another. One could just as easily say that your own problems stem from a focus on warfare, and empowering the powerful. Whether you choose to explain this religiously (which does provide one way to look at it) like I just did, or with logic both ways can lead to the same conclusion: An empowered population where talent can grow to a high position regardless of it's birthplace and -wealth and all members of society get lifted up by a rising tide, not just the elite, will be a stable and functional society. Whereas a society operating by the sociodarwinian policies you adopt will eventually in accordance with history fail.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It's quite simple really:

Society A restricts the best educational opportunities to those who can afford them, only admitting a few exceptionally talented people from the "lower classes".

Society B does not restrict access to an excellent education, allowing a wider range of people from all levels of economical wealth to max out their natural abilities.

Now, which society will fare better? A or B?

By right-wing "logic", society A ought to go for the win, because it does not "burden" the elite with the costs of a universal education. Reality shows that the reverse is true, because society B will produce more highly trained professionals.

Rinse and repeat:

Society A restricts access to medical care to the monetary elite, only providing emergency measures for those who cannot afford them on their own.

Society B distributes the costs among society as a whole, offering medical services to everyone (with "extra" services being available for those who can afford them).

Again, who fares better? In the long run, society A will weaken itself by not taking care of its sick and ailing, thus increasing the "downtime" of employees. Yet by right-wing "logic", society A should be the more prosperous.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I forgive you and I will pray for you.

When will it end, Zongerfield? When will the pretentiousness end? We've spent 40 pages of discussion telling you how arrogant it is for you to say "I forgive you" to people who have done you no wrong.

I can safely say you are the most irritating Christian on these boards I've interacted with and you've probably pushed me further away from Christianity than anybody else here has. But I forgive you. Because you're too self-absorbed to know how to interact with people in a way that shows them respect.

 

[TheReasoner]

It's quite simple really:

Society A restricts the best educational opportunities to those who can afford them, only admitting a few exceptionally talented people from the "lower classes".

Society B does not restrict access to an excellent education, allowing a wider range of people from all levels of economical wealth to max out their natural abilities.

Now, which society will fare better? A or B?

By right-wing "logic", society A ought to go for the win, because it does not "burden" the elite with the costs of a universal education. Reality shows that the reverse is true, because society B will produce more highly trained professionals.

Rinse and repeat:

Society A restricts access to medical care to the monetary elite, only providing emergency measures for those who cannot afford them on their own.

Society B distributes the costs among society as a whole, offering medical services to everyone (with "extra" services being available for those who can afford them).

Again, who fares better? In the long run, society A will weaken itself by not taking care of its sick and ailing, thus increasing the "downtime" of employees. Yet by right-wing "logic", society A should be the more prosperous.

Yes, it is simple. Thanks for putting it up in simple terms, too.
I do not find any reason to adhere to right wing thinking. At all. I've tried. Hard. But I can't find validity in the approach.

When will it end, Zongerfield? When will the pretentiousness end? We've spent 40 pages of discussion telling you how arrogant it is for you to say "I forgive you" to people who have done you no wrong.

I can safely say you are the most irritating Christian on these boards I've interacted with and you've probably pushed me further away from Christianity than anybody else here has. But I forgive you. Because you're too self-absorbed to know how to interact with people in a way that shows them respect.

I think we have established what Zongerfield is by now.

• He loves to praise himself
• He loves to act condescendingly
• He is fine with genocide
• He is a social darwinist

I think I quoted a certain verse...
Matthew 23:27-28
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Can anyone here really say that I am wrong in quoting this verse? Does it fail as a description of Zongerfield?

 

[Charlie V]

"Socialism" is a straw man argument.

 

[TheReasoner]

Charlie V quote

While there are people starving, homeless, hard-working people thrown out of jobs and evicted from their homes because of the greed of big business, people being overworked and underpaid and uncompensated for their labor, as long as these people exist--as they do exist, increasingly so in the last several decades--none of the things on the above list is being accomplished by our government. Not one.

It's a governments job to care. If the government does not care, we should not vote for them.

Response

And what about the 40% that commit adultery and have illegitimate children or the homosexuals that get AIDS due to homosexual activity.

There are a few that are hard-working people that lose their jobs, but most are people are willingly participating in risky lifestyles.

I see no need for the government to help anyone that is not doing all they can to prevent the need for government help.

The Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke/execute evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

Socialists think the concept of giving people health care/welfare/entitlement programs will cause them to become self sufficient, but history shows the health care/welfare/entitlement programs only lead to a dependance on the government and generational welfare people. Tough love is the best approach by government with the church offering a changed life through Jesus Christ.

Socialism is giving a person a fish, Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

The only secular program that has been effective in changing lives has been Alcoholics Anonymous which is based on the concept of regular meeting attendance, strict adherence to a set of rule, and aid from fellow alcoholics, which is the Christian Lifestyle concept in a secular format.

For the alcoholics that join AA there is life, and for the alcoholics that refuse to join there is death.

I intend to vote for people that keep government out of people lives, which means I will not vote for any democrats, because the democrats advocate Socialism and Atheism for America.

Socialism sustains Atheists and Atheism creates people that need Socialism. Now that is a truly symbiotic relationship.

Let me boil that down for you:

 

[TheReasoner]

Do you ever consider, that verse could describe you?

Of course. I try to scrutinize myself and see when I am sinning and then do something about it. When called upon to repent I ransack my soul to see if and where I have done wrong. I try to do this without being called to do so by others too. I am not perfect Clirus. I want to be, because I want to be like Jesus, but I'm a man who stumbles and falls and must ask forgiveness every day. I try to be as good as I can be, but I'm a sinner in need of forgiveness every day. If I show myself off as holier than thou I am sorry, that is not my intent. But I will not shut up when I see someone advocating genocide in Christ's name.
The important difference here though is that you and Zongerfield actively go out and promote ways which harm the poor. You call yourselves christians but reject the word of Christ. You say you're good, but promote bloodshed, violence and greed. Neither one of you show any of the fruits of the spirit, but their antithesis instead. And - also important - you don't listen or even think appear to twice about criticism directed at you.

This does not mean that I am sin-free or that I am guiltless and blameless. I am by no means any of the aforementioned. I am but a believer who has on these boards pointed out an area in which you and Zongerfield both are guilty of mis-stepping. By pointing that out I do not try to elevate myself, just state that you've made a mistake which you need to repent from.

I trust I'd be told if I overstep or misstep. Do forgive if I don't put much weight in your statements in that regard Clirus. I generally don't consider you an authority on much I fear. You see, when someone promotes what you do, and claims it to be Christian... Well... I keep thinking you need professional help. Seriously. I think you do. That's not bad though, every human being can reach such a position where that is necessary. So one important factor here is who decides to seek help and who do not. I keep hoping you'll seek help. Even if it is to dispell our claims regarding you. Just head off to a psychiatrist and jab away. Get it all out, and see what happens. See if he says you need help or don't. And I STRONGLY urge you to TAKE his professional advice, whatever that may be

 

[TheReasoner]

Zongerfield:
You say caring for the poor will break a society.
Please answer this:
Why does the bible promote it?
Why has it worked to raise up those nations who have done it, not break them down?

If you were right, surely your position would be mirrored in history. Why is it the opposite we see?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Socialists think the concept of giving people health care/welfare/entitlement programs will cause them to become self sufficient, but history shows the health care/welfare/entitlement programs only lead to a dependance on the government and generational welfare people. Tough love is the best approach by government with the church offering a changed life through Jesus Christ.

Oh really? History shows that? Then you wouldn't mind providing some historical sources to back up what you're claiming.

Socialism sustains Atheists and Atheism creates people that need Socialism. Now that is a truly symbiotic relationship.

Prove it.

 

[Charlie V]

If entitlements = socialism, why do my right-wing Republican in-laws who want President Obama to be impeached, who voted for Chris Christie for NJ governor (and for the more conservative contender Lonegan in the primary) and who rail against socialism, still collect their social security check and use Medicare to pay for their healthcare?

If atheism = socialism, why is it that a close friend of mine, an atheist, is also a right-wing Republican who wants President Obama to be impeached, who voted for Chris Christie for NJ governor and who rails against socialism?

Also, if atheism = socialism = the Democrats, why is it that a close friend of mine is a fundamentalist and an evangelical Christian, a member of the Democratic party who has great compassion for the poor, sick and elderly, but does not consider himself a socialist?

Finally, if atheism = socialism = the Democrats, why is it that another person I know considers himself a deist, is a socialist, but hates the Democrats? He refuses to vote for any Democrat or Republican, he considers them exactly the same, and he adamantly opposed Obama's health care plan.

In fact, I don't think I know anyone who is all three of the following: socialist, Democratic, and atheist. Nor do I know a single Republican over 65, no matter how conservative, who refuses to accept social security or medicare because it's socialism.

Notes on the "False Association Fallacy."

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is just utterly nonsensical to relate these three things as if they are one. It's absurd. It's not worth the time.

And that's just the beginning. Like homosexuality and adultery. They're just two totally different and unrelated things. And not the only time. Clirus just strings words together that don't have anything to do with each other, creating sentences that are almost unreadable because they simply don't make logical sense.

It's like saying that all vegetarians are frequent airplane fliers. Like saying that all shoplifters are Presbyterians. Like saying that all security guards are Hindu, and all Walmart greeters are Wiccan.

It just makes no sense. It's such bad false association, it's also another fallacy.

Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's becoming impossible to have a conversation because words are so poorly understood and misdefined by some people here, who keep throwing words together that have nothing to do with one another as if the words are one, so that the very attempt to discuss a topic is like being in the Tower of Babel and trying to communicate with someone who does not speak the same language.

Sometimes, when I read clirus, it's like reading, "We cannot tolerate the socialistic hamburger Swiss cheese unicorns who keep drinking Pepsi, like the Wall Street Journal reading pagan transsexuals that Jesus opposed."

I have no problem discussing socialism or Democratic policies or entitlements or atheism or homosexuality or adultery.

But it's simply impossible for me to discuss the socialistic/atheistic/democratic entitlements to homosexuality/adultery. Because that's just throwing a whole bunch of unrelated words together. It's not even a sentence. It almost resembles one grammatically, but just almost. I'm sorry, but I can't have a conversation when it's all babbling, ranting and incoherent. There needs to be something in there that makes sense in order for me to agree or disagree, to support or debate. It's like an angry person standing in a city on top of a soapbox, yelling and screaming, and you stop to listen because a word catches you're ear and makes you interested, and then you realize it's just a troubled person ranting a series of words that have no relation to each other.

Charlie

 

[Nathan Poe]

Charlie V quote

While there are people starving, homeless, hard-working people thrown out of jobs and evicted from their homes because of the greed of big business, people being overworked and underpaid and uncompensated for their labor, as long as these people exist--as they do exist, increasingly so in the last several decades--none of the things on the above list is being accomplished by our government. Not one.

It's a governments job to care. If the government does not care, we should not vote for them.

Response

And what about the 40% that commit adultery and have illegitimate children

Many of whom are good Christians who simply had a moment of weakness.

or the homosexuals that get AIDS due to homosexual activity.

What about the heterosexuals who get AIDS due to all sorts of sexual and non-sexual activity?

There are a few that are hard-working people that lose their jobs, but most are people are willingly participating in risky lifestyles.

So you say -- and you seem to think they all deserve to rot.

How Christ-like of you.

I see no need for the government to help anyone that is not doing all they can to prevent the need for government help.

And by your own twisted definition, anyone who needs government help didn't do all they could to prevent it.

The Church should rebuke sin/evil in obedience to God and the State should rebuke/execute evil/sin for health, safety and economic reasons.

And since you consider people having illegitimate children to be sin/evil, how soon before they get executed?

Oh, right -- "three strikes," correct?

Socialists think the concept of giving people health care/welfare/entitlement programs will cause them to become self sufficient, but history shows the health care/welfare/entitlement programs only lead to a dependance on the government and generational welfare people. Tough love is the best approach by government with the church offering a changed life through Jesus Christ.

If you're any indication, the church has failed in its mission -- any reason to think they're suddenly going to step up to the plate?

Socialism is giving a person a fish, Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

Actually, Christianity is starving to death while praying for a fish.

I intend to vote for people that keep government out of people lives, which means I will not vote for any democrats, because the democrats advocate Socialism and Atheism for America.

But you'll happily vote for people who want government-mandated Christianity in everyone's lives.

Socialism sustains Atheists and Atheism creates people that need Socialism. Now that is a truly symbiotic relationship.

And Christianity is different how? Does it produce people who no longer need it?

 

[Charlie V]

Socialism is giving a person a fish, Christianity is teaching a person to fish.

Is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The above sentence is a non-sequitur and a false association, because it treats "Socialism" and "Christianity" as opposites, when they are actually unrelated.

Socialism is an economic theory. Christianity is a religion.

There are Christians who are Socialists.
There are Christians who aren't Socialists.

There are Socialists who are Christian.
There are Socialists who aren't Christian.

May I assume that Christian Socialists first give a man a fish and then teach him to fish?

It's just such a silly, non-sequitur statement that it's not worth addressing. If she treats "Socialism" and "Christianity" as if they are opposites, then she obviously defines the words differently than most people, and if that's the case, she might as well have said, "Wakkamo is giving a person a fish, Guacaboliam is teaching a person to fish," to which I may reply, "That's nice, I have no idea what you're talking about, so have a nice day. When we both speak the same English and use the same dictionary to define words, come back and we can converse together."

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

I was just re-reading one of my posts from the other day, and I got to thinking. In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes progressives make is letting the other guys control the conversation. I'm making the same mistake.

The conversation the anti-progressives want to have, is a carnival sideshow, just like the birther garbage.

Some of my earlier comments were quoted and responded to. Others of my comments were ignored. Within my ignored comments, there is much that the anti-progressives want to ignore, so I'm going to repeat an earlier point.

But first, a few words on sideshows, in a bigger font than they deserve.

"Socialism!" Sideshow.
"Atheistic!" Sideshow.
"Commit adultery and have illegitimate children!" Sideshow.
"entitlements!" Sideshow.


Now, I'd be interested to know about these things, because these are really the things that are driving our politics, and ruining our economy and ruining us all!

Big oil companies are funding our politicians campaigns, corporations are now allowed limitless secret funding of politicians and create a conflict of interest in the corporations favor and against the workers, and the oil companies have reaped billions of dollars in extra profits by raising your prices at the pumps! And guess what folks... they paid not one dime in taxes last year! Not one dime!

Seriously, are you guys over on the right side of the aisle okay with that??

When big oil companies and other corporations pay not one dime in taxes, when corporations dodge taxes at our expense, get sweetheart deals and hide their income in capital gains and other low-tax or tax free ventures and the multi-billionaire pays the same payroll tax as a person making $100,000, and the same income tax on his capital gains as a person making $8,000, and his corporation can pay $0 in taxes but can raise prices to no end for no other reason than to increase profit, and when they receive bailouts in the billions and award themselves multimillion dollar bonuses, do you really think that that's okay, because it's "free market" but you have a problem with those other... sideshows?

The corporations are really okay with you guys over on the right?

Really?

Seriously?

So okay, that when I comment on it, you ignore those comments and quote something else I said?

Charlie

 

[super animator]

Actually, Christianity is starving to death while praying for a fish.

Is that a broad assumption that you made?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is that a broad assumption that you made?

Actually, it's called humor.

 

[Zongerfield]

Yes, it is simple. Thanks for putting it up in simple terms, too.
I do not find any reason to adhere to right wing thinking. At all. I've tried. Hard. But I can't find validity in the approach.


I think we have established what Zongerfield is by now.

• He loves to praise himself
• He loves to act condescendingly
• He is fine with genocide
• He is a social darwinist

I think I quoted a certain verse...
Matthew 23:27-28
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Can anyone here really say that I am wrong in quoting this verse? Does it fail as a description of Zongerfield?

You are so attached to paradigms and labels it's scary. Take a step back and instead of opening up every argument or rebuttal with a strawman, or a conclusion you have made based on conjecture, "zongerfield, you really are a hypocrite, you really are a condescending, you really don't care about the poor, you really think you know more than the bible, etc." try reaching out to get to know someone. Try a more empathetic approach. Your way or reasoning is reductive and mean-spirited.

I never said I hate the poor, the sick, the elderly. I don't think we should use genocidal directives on homosexuals. I don't prescribe to social Darwinism, I believe in equal opportunity (as we were all created in God's image).

I do, however, like meritocracies. Think of sports. That's the one business where people get paid on their merit (or potential merit) alone. If the real world was more like this, I think we'd all be better off.

Lastly, wickedness is labeling someone else "wicked" without knowing all the facts. A friend of mine used to say about Muslims, "everything I need to know about them, I learned on 9/11" - is this really the right way of thinking?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are so attached to paradigms and labels it's scary. Take a step back and instead of opening up every argument or rebuttal with a strawman, or a conclusion you have made based on conjecture, "zongerfield, you really are a hypocrite, you really are a condescending, you really don't care about the poor, you really think you know more than the bible, etc." try reaching out to get to know someone. Try a more empathetic approach. Your way or reasoning is reductive and mean-spirited.

I never said I hate the poor, the sick, the elderly. I don't think we should use genocidal directives on homosexuals. I don't prescribe to social Darwinism, I believe in equal opportunity (as we were all created in God's image).

I do, however, like meritocracies. Think of sports. That's the one business where people get paid on their merit (or potential merit) alone. If the real world was more like this, I think we'd all be better off.

Lastly, wickedness is labeling someone else "wicked" without knowing all the facts. A friend of mine used to say about Muslims, "everything I need to know about them, I learned on 9/11" - is this really the right way of thinking?

Now, now, Zong -- there's really no need to lash out just because FG hit a nerve. The important thing here is for you to understand that nobody blames you for any of this -- it's not your fault that you're this way.

If you were to apologize for following the wrong track (no matter how much you've convinced yourself it's the right one), I have no doubt that the rest of us would have no trouble forgiving you, and praying for you.

 

[TheReasoner]

You are so attached to paradigms and labels it's scary. Take a step back and instead of opening up every argument or rebuttal with a strawman, or a conclusion you have made based on conjecture, "zongerfield, you really are a hypocrite, you really are a condescending, you really don't care about the poor, you really think you know more than the bible, etc." try reaching out to get to know someone. Try a more empathetic approach. Your way or reasoning is reductive and mean-spirited.

I never said I hate the poor, the sick, the elderly. I don't think we should use genocidal directives on homosexuals. I don't prescribe to social Darwinism, I believe in equal opportunity (as we were all created in God's image).

I do, however, like meritocracies. Think of sports. That's the one business where people get paid on their merit (or potential merit) alone. If the real world was more like this, I think we'd all be better off.

Lastly, wickedness is labeling someone else "wicked" without knowing all the facts. A friend of mine used to say about Muslims, "everything I need to know about them, I learned on 9/11" - is this really the right way of thinking?

Zongerfield. I did try. Didnt I? You ignored my requests for your moderation, and ignored my outstretched hand and kept on insulting everyone. You still do it in your more recent posts.

As for social darwinism, genocide and the like. You have read Clirus posts and you have defended her. Granted youve said you think she may word herself poorly, but you support her three tier judgement system, and you think thats alright. Yet you dont condemn her policies. You dont condemn her desire to wipe out sin by bloodshed. WHy not? It seems an awful like genocide to me Zongerfield. How isnt it?

Also, for social darwinism... Yes, you do support that. You can call it meritocracy all you like, in your refusal to let the strong help the weak you are in effect killing people, Zongerfield. I dont care if youre left or right wing but thats over the top. Healthcare is a basic human right, and you would deny it because of your reverence for money. Or at least thats how it seems. How is this NOT social darwinism? Please, enlighten me Zongerfied.

Also, you say you believe in equal opportunity. Why, thats good. I suppose that means we should toss all youve said about the poor not deserving an equal treatment in the educational system and healthcare system as the rich because of their lacking funds then? Equal opportunity requires roughly equal starting positions. Travel down south to a slum in a Latin American country and tell me how on earth a child born there is likely to have an equal opportunity as one born to an upper class family in the same country? They wont. Not a chance. Smart or dumb, and no matter how hard working, theyll die there. And the same is true for most poor americans. Yes. Some manage to pull out. But thats usually less, far less, than one in a million.

You also neglect to respond to my other question: If your position had any merit whatsoever, why isnt it promoted in the bible? And whats more, why isnt it something we know works in real life?



You need to step back and look at your own posts. Ever since you came in here you have praised yourself in almost every post. You have kept on being extremely demeaning. And you keep on defending a person whose policies are extremely vile. How are we supposed to take that? Should we just say its okay, because after all you claim to be a christian?
And then theres the poor. You get so upset about the poor getting things like healthcare and education you cannot even type your old demeaning "I forgive you" properly, by your own admission. So what are we to think? That you love them? You keep on labelling liberals "wastrels", and keep on talking about how the rich shouldnt be burdened by having to help the weak. So.... Come on, Zongerfield. You cant seriously not see how that will be taken, can you? You appear to be a hypocrite of rather extreme proportions here. You claim to be a good christian, yet you laud yourself, belittle others, defend a genocidal madwoman, promote social darwinism (Yes, you do) and get emotional enough about the poor getting what basic rights they have per the human rights charter ratified by your own nation (albeit not followed very well I dare say) that you cannot even type straight.