Post by christian on Feb 9, 2008 5:38:47 GMT -5
Guest
I will will address your comments in order.
Since by your statement you are implying that I am "ignorant and uneducated" I will submit the following facts: I have an IQ of 145 and a masters degree in Mathematics form an ivy league university. I would guess that that places me above you in both intelligence and education, not that that is in any way germane to our discussion here. But since you brought it up I thought I'd address the subject.
Since you have offered no reason or rationality for why they shouldn't be called lefties, and your argument that one is ignorant and uneducated for referring to them as lefties is weak at best, I'll offer my reasons for calling the left... lefties. In the first place I don't think they should be so labeled because you are ignorant and uneducated. I will reserve that characterization of you for your inability or unwillingness to provide any rational for your position. However, I would like to point out that those who would be called liberal are not liberal. A liberal is one who believes in freedom. They do not believe in freedom except beyond their narrow constituency, and they will employ any means at their disposal to advance their little group. Case in point; our "take no prisoners" lady of torts PB of TEC who will only interfere in diocesan affairs if that diocese has the temerity to negotiate in good faith with the orthodox. Lefties like to be called liberal because liberal sounds good, and if the best argument you can muster for your position is that those who disagree with you are ignorant and uneducated then you want to at least have a moniker that sounds good. What lefties do is grasp and scrape for power and then use that power to force everyone else to accept and live by their lefty world view. The descriptor "fascist" comes to mind. But I'll stick with lefty: I don't want to insult you, or fascists, more than I already have.
Your proposition that we water board the left into submission is unacceptable. True liberals, like myself, reject it as an infringement on the freedom of the person being water boarded, but the idea does have merit. However I don't think water boarding the opposition will ever be accepted by the orthodox. I am widely read on the subject and I am aware of no orthodox person or group which would countenance the practice. I submit that you will see lefties water boarding the orthodox into submission first. Definitely the left would be far more willing to act in this way: in fact, I would guess that the only thing now restraining the left from using this practice on the orthodox is the fact that water boarding is sometimes used by the US government to provide for the security of the country. The left certainly would not want to give a patina of legitimacy to any practice which is employed by the security forces of the USA. So I guess your proposition that we water board the opposition is out.
Now the dung you've flung at my country, the USA, is a little far afield here, but since you brought it up I would like to offer a few ideas. I won't say you're ignorant or uneducated if you disagree with me unless you fail to offer any facts or rationally to support your view. Even then I probably wouldn't say that: I'd more likely say you are a typical lefty.
A reasonable, intelligent, and educated person would not simply assume that water boarding is wrong. I don't have to enumerate the arguments against it here. We all find the practice repugnant. But we are not charged with the security of the USA or, de facto, of the free world. Those who are deserve a little more consideration than the leering condemnation of those who have a not so hidden agenda in the matter. The security forces seem to think they need to do it. I would prefer it if they didn't, but you have to admit that a few seconds of water boarding might be cathartic for a terrorist who feels no compunction about killing a few thousand innocents. And the terrorist will suffer no ill effects a few seconds after the water boarding ends, unlike his victims or ,say, an orthodox parish who has their church and endowment ripped out from under them by an overzealous presiding bishop and her legal team.
I will will address your comments in order.
Since by your statement you are implying that I am "ignorant and uneducated" I will submit the following facts: I have an IQ of 145 and a masters degree in Mathematics form an ivy league university. I would guess that that places me above you in both intelligence and education, not that that is in any way germane to our discussion here. But since you brought it up I thought I'd address the subject.
Since you have offered no reason or rationality for why they shouldn't be called lefties, and your argument that one is ignorant and uneducated for referring to them as lefties is weak at best, I'll offer my reasons for calling the left... lefties. In the first place I don't think they should be so labeled because you are ignorant and uneducated. I will reserve that characterization of you for your inability or unwillingness to provide any rational for your position. However, I would like to point out that those who would be called liberal are not liberal. A liberal is one who believes in freedom. They do not believe in freedom except beyond their narrow constituency, and they will employ any means at their disposal to advance their little group. Case in point; our "take no prisoners" lady of torts PB of TEC who will only interfere in diocesan affairs if that diocese has the temerity to negotiate in good faith with the orthodox. Lefties like to be called liberal because liberal sounds good, and if the best argument you can muster for your position is that those who disagree with you are ignorant and uneducated then you want to at least have a moniker that sounds good. What lefties do is grasp and scrape for power and then use that power to force everyone else to accept and live by their lefty world view. The descriptor "fascist" comes to mind. But I'll stick with lefty: I don't want to insult you, or fascists, more than I already have.
Your proposition that we water board the left into submission is unacceptable. True liberals, like myself, reject it as an infringement on the freedom of the person being water boarded, but the idea does have merit. However I don't think water boarding the opposition will ever be accepted by the orthodox. I am widely read on the subject and I am aware of no orthodox person or group which would countenance the practice. I submit that you will see lefties water boarding the orthodox into submission first. Definitely the left would be far more willing to act in this way: in fact, I would guess that the only thing now restraining the left from using this practice on the orthodox is the fact that water boarding is sometimes used by the US government to provide for the security of the country. The left certainly would not want to give a patina of legitimacy to any practice which is employed by the security forces of the USA. So I guess your proposition that we water board the opposition is out.
Now the dung you've flung at my country, the USA, is a little far afield here, but since you brought it up I would like to offer a few ideas. I won't say you're ignorant or uneducated if you disagree with me unless you fail to offer any facts or rationally to support your view. Even then I probably wouldn't say that: I'd more likely say you are a typical lefty.
A reasonable, intelligent, and educated person would not simply assume that water boarding is wrong. I don't have to enumerate the arguments against it here. We all find the practice repugnant. But we are not charged with the security of the USA or, de facto, of the free world. Those who are deserve a little more consideration than the leering condemnation of those who have a not so hidden agenda in the matter. The security forces seem to think they need to do it. I would prefer it if they didn't, but you have to admit that a few seconds of water boarding might be cathartic for a terrorist who feels no compunction about killing a few thousand innocents. And the terrorist will suffer no ill effects a few seconds after the water boarding ends, unlike his victims or ,say, an orthodox parish who has their church and endowment ripped out from under them by an overzealous presiding bishop and her legal team.