Senate Derp, DERP. Derpitimus Maximus. Derpity deeeeeeerp...

Excerpt:

"The Occupy Wall Street movement was in part a reaction to the painful reality pressing in on the Leftists that their masters had betrayed them: the beloved masters in Washington made a deal with Wall Street, to establish a state-syndicate alliance in one field of the economy after another, from the Motor Car industry to the Student Loan industry, and the Occupiers dimly felt this. Small investors were having their 401K’s wiped out while CEO’s were getting more in bonuses than a workingman makes in ten years. The Occupiers knew the same thing that the Tea Party movement knew, namely, that the rich had ganged up with the powerful to trample the faces of the poor. Being rightwing, the Tea Party marched on the powerful in Washington, and were peaceful. Being leftwing ,the Occupiers marched on the rich in Wall Street, and were violent. (And the Press, being Leftwing, reported not just untruth but the exactly opposite of the truth in both cases.)"

The Shell-Game in a nut...shell. Conservatives and Liberals = both pro-big government Statists, giving out favors to big business. Crony Capitalism.

And I know that the Occupy Wall Street movement is in the wheelhouse of many here.

Ramza, I asked for an argument, not circular reasoning.

 

My argument is it's a tautological metaphysical necessity.

 

That was just a restatement, it was quite plain from ⊨◻(Stupid, Unibomber-esque manifesto ⊃ Crap).

 

I don't necessarily agree with everything this guy says.

 

But since I don't agree with what he says about Picasso and Nietzsche, I am not obligated to defend him* for calling them frauds. Just like I'm not obligated to defend everything a Republican says or does, since I am not a Republican.

*At any rate, he explains why he doesn't like the left/leftists.

Yeah, he says that he thinks that they're wrong, but not intrinsically evil - quite unlike how leftists view their opponents.

 

Unless you told me - like you just did, how would I know that you were one? If it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply. Just like "young earth creationist" doesn't apply to me.

 

How can you categorically state this? That would be like me denying that there are young earth creationists.

 

So if it doesn't apply to YOU, it applies to NO ONE? What a self-centered* worldview.

*then again, this is keeping with the fact that the universe revolves around the JCC. Juliet316


There are Christians who aren't young earth creationists. There are Tea Party candidates - like Rand Paul - who are actually not against gay marriage. But I suppose it's ok to generalize against those people, then? That's exactly the hypocrisy that Wright points out in his essay.

 

"Picking on" Juliet: you mean it's obviously NOT a **** move to play the "n00b" card, i.e. "You're new to JCC threads, aren't you?"

But I like how pointing out that the world doesn't revolve around the JCC is an example of "picking on" Juliet.

 

No. JOHN C. WRIGHT generalized all leftists. I said, and I quote (look at the original quote above):

"Yeah, HE says that HE thinks that they (the leftists) are wrong, but NOT intrinsically evil - quite unlike how leftists view their opponents."

That last part which, btw, is what HE thinks about leftists in general.

No. I didn't accuse you of generalizing. I accused you of being self-centered, because your reasoning was that since it didn't apply to YOU, it applied to NO ONE.

But again, the problem isn't generalization per se, since this thread has established that it's okay to generalize Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, etc. - generally those who aren't part of the 'protected class' as defined by Political Correctness. No caveats allowed, no "but I know person X, and he is X, and he doesn't think this way", with "X" being those who belong to the 'profane' group. This is the hypocrisy that the writer of the essay spoke of.

So, if it doesn't apply to you - or to people that YOU personally know - what's the issue? The issue is that your particular ox - leftism - was being gored, in a thread where generalization of those 'other' people was encouraged.

 

That's exactly what I mean. I left the fact that I found my own post sensible to be inferred. Luckily, you were here to step forward and really bring that point home.

Do you go around explicitly stating everything that's implied? No wonder your posts are so frigging long.

No, what's offensive is that this guy just said that men are cold, inhospitable, cold-hearted, selfish, uncaring, antagonistic and dedicated to creating hateful, harsh, threatening environments. That all those things have been built into man by God, that God has designed us to be all of those things. I'm a man and I'm a Christian and that's a load of offensive rubbish. I'm none of those things.

 

Fair enough. I misread what you posted, and I retract my posts in response to you. Do you accept?

 

If we all ignore it, it might go away.

 

But again, the problem isn't generalization per se, since this thread has established that it's okay to generalize Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, etc. - generally those who aren't part of the 'protected class' as defined by Political Correctness. No caveats allowed, no "but I know person X, and he is X, and he doesn't think this way", with "X" being those who belong to the 'profane' group. This is the hypocrisy that the writer of the essay spoke of.

We are still waiting. We have over 150 page sof quotes...you know...recorded quotes from people making ridiculous statements such as tornadoes are sent by god to punish gays, such as the Earth only being 6,000 years old, such as people looking to pass laws to make race discrimination legal. If they or you don't wish to be generalized like this then perhaps they and you need to quit making ridiculous statements. Calling your wall of text derp was accurate. But please keep drawing attention to this thread like this. It's exactly what I want.