guys, it's breath-taking time

[_ajax18]

Firstly, it has to do the fact that I defeated you in a number of debates, from which you always "retreated" for a "cooling off period." Second, it has to do with your postings down in the Telestial Kingdom---I.e., the stuff which I have really felt was quite racist. (You have since posted other material which is racist, which was called to your [and everyone's] attention by Jersey Girl.) What I have noticed is that the adolescent stuff does not send you packing. When you are dealt with in a calm, reasonable way, you always leave in a huff. So: that alone is reason enough to end the namecalling.

Would you care to define racism for me? Remember to anticipate my points on reverse racism, or are you one of those people who believes there is no such thing.

If racism simply meant not to discriminate against a person based on race and everybody, black, male and female were on board with that I would have been a big supporter. Yet practically it's come to mean that a white person can't say anything negative about a nonwhite person but vice versa is fine. If it's not fine, it's seldom talked about, nor have my concerns about reverse racism ever been validated when I've brought them up. Thus I've grown even more suspicious and angry at this constant chorus of racism especially at the political level. Incidentally my black friends seem to understand not to talk about racism with me and we do fine. Yet you leftists see it as the greatest sin a man can commit and somehow only a white man can commit it. Listening to you people and your unfairness and biased reporting of the facts has probably driven me more towards being a racist than anything else, even my own biological nature. If you really want young white men to not be racist, perhaps it would be a little wiser to try and gain their trust and see their side of the story instead of constantly attacking them in this unwarranted barrage of leftist propaganda that seemed to start as early as the fifth grade.

[_rcrocket]

You know, Loran, I have reflected upon this for a while. I tried to think back, to where all of this really started, and I realize that it basically stems from two things. Firstly, it has to do the fact that I defeated you in a number of debates, from which you always "retreated" for a "cooling off period."

This statement commands zilch respect. I have a saying with my children: If you have to say you "not a baby," it means that you are. Indeed, if you have to chestpound with every one of your adversaries that you have pummelled them in debate, it shows the weakness of your own sense of position.

The simple fact of the matter is that Loran spits out out racist things, exactly as does Kevin Graham. You give Graham a pass because he's pissed off at the Church, a secret apostate, and an anonymite at that. You don't with Loran who displays none of those characteristics. Your personal moral position is relative. You have no moral framework for your arguments. To you, a racist is a good thing if he also hates the Church.

rcrocket

[_harmony]

You know, Loran, I have reflected upon this for a while. I tried to think back, to where all of this really started, and I realize that it basically stems from two things. Firstly, it has to do the fact that I defeated you in a number of debates, from which you always "retreated" for a "cooling off period."

This statement commands zilch respect. I have a saying with my children: If you have to say you "not a baby," it means that you are. Indeed, if you have to chestpound with every one of your adversaries that you have pummelled them in debate, it shows the weakness of your own sense of position.

The simple fact of the matter is that Loran spits out out racist things, exactly as does Kevin Graham. You give Graham a pass because he's pissed off at the Church, a secret apostate, and an anonymite at that. You don't with Loran who displays none of those characteristics. Your personal moral position is relative. You have no moral framework for your arguments. To you, a racist is a good thing if he also hates the Church.

rcrocket

Kevin says racist things? How so? (and Kevin doesn't hate the church.)

[_Mister Scratch]

The simple fact of the matter is that Loran spits out out racist things, exactly as does Kevin Graham. You give Graham a pass because he's pissed off at the Church, a secret apostate, and an anonymite at that. You don't with Loran who displays none of those characteristics. Your personal moral position is relative. You have no moral framework for your arguments. To you, a racist is a good thing if he also hates the Church.

rcrocket

If you're referring to KG's comments on Islam, then I have to disagree with you here. After all, people of many different races are Muslim. Thus, his criticism is religion-, rather than race-based.

[_rcrocket]

The simple fact of the matter is that Loran spits out out racist things, exactly as does Kevin Graham. You give Graham a pass because he's pissed off at the Church, a secret apostate, and an anonymite at that. You don't with Loran who displays none of those characteristics. Your personal moral position is relative. You have no moral framework for your arguments. To you, a racist is a good thing if he also hates the Church.

rcrocket

If you're referring to KG's comments on Islam, then I have to disagree with you here. After all, people of many different races are Muslim. Thus, his criticism is religion-, rather than race-based.

Oh. That makes me feel better. He hates all Muslims, which is not a racism thing.

His ultra-right ring spewing of hatred for all things Muslim doesn't bother you because it is not race-based. Since hatred of Jews is not race-based either (Graham also said the Crusades, which killed tens of thousands of Jews, Muslims and 40,000 Alignisians in one day, was an appropriate defense of Christianity), I guess under your view you can just about hate anybody and it will be acceptable. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus -- hate them all because it is not a racist thing. Like I say, your and Harmony's positions have no moral basis; all things are relative to you.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

The simple fact of the matter is that Loran spits out out racist things, exactly as does Kevin Graham. You give Graham a pass because he's pissed off at the Church, a secret apostate, and an anonymite at that.

I think Kevin G is really Kevin G...Me however, am still a damned hypocrite.

[_ajax18]

Thus, his criticism is religion-, rather than race-based.

I guess under your view you can just about hate anybody and it will be acceptable. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus -- hate them all because it is not a racist thing. Like I say, your and Harmony's positions have no moral basis; all things are relative to you.

I don't think Scratch said that. Hating a religion (a belief system) is much different than hating the people.

Until the Muslim religion shows some more outrage and action against what these so called "apostate Muslims" are doing with their antisemitism and terror throughout the world, I'm not sure I really think much of Islam either. Just saying, "Oh we didn't tell them to do that," just doesn't cut it for me. For the most part, I just don't believe them when they say their religion actually promotes peace.

Syria: Oh no we didn't shoot rockets at your country. That was Hezbollah. You can't blame us for that.
Israel: Are you going to stop them?
Syria: No see we can't, they're too strong.
Israel: Let us help you do it then.
Syria: Oh we don't really want to do that either. Truth is we like what they're doing. We're just saying you can't blame us for them doing it.

But isn't it convenient to play the race card when people say those things. This goes back to my original point that the word "racism," has taken on so many false and immoral meanings in popular culture other than its dictionary definition that all the word really does for me is draw out my own suspicion in the one who is accusing another of it.

[_Coggins7]

Scratch's charges of racism against those who dissent from the standard pc orthodoxy regarding Affirmative Action, racial set asides, lowered admissions standards, and reparations, are not intended to be intellectually substantive. They are nothing more than a well poisoning technique that artificially turns the focus of a debate away from the substance of the issue to the motivations and character of his interlocutor.

This technique is a demagogic one, not a philosophical one, and whatever you think of Scratch's politics (which he won't pin himself down on any more than his "degrees"), its a technique that has been standard among the cultural Left since the Sixties when dealing with principled disagreement with various policies and ideological concepts.

Here is how it works:

Special, institutionalized privileges or exemptions, based not on merit, but on group affiliation, are wrong (your are a racist).

Homosexuality is morally wrong, sinful, and socially destructive (you are a homophobe)

Socialism is an inefficient and morally questionable way to manage a society (you hate the poor)

Radical Feminism has had a destructive and malignant effect upon society (you are a male chauvinist, if not a misogynist. You are anti-woman).

The environmental movement has had a destructive and malignant effect upon society (you are anti-environment).

Capitalism is the best and most efficient form of economic conduct ever developed by man (you are a greedy, mean spirited, capitalist oppressor).

This is how leftist demagogues play the game. Keep in mind folks, that this is the guy who thinks the original King Kong model was made of clay!

[_ajax18]

You forgot one,

You conclude based on research that illegal and mass immigration is a drag on the economy and will ulitmately result in lowering the standard of living of the common American to a level they would never have agreed to if they had enough sense to foresee the results. You'd like to put a check on this with responsible immigration laws so that the economy is not overwhelmed with an inexhaustible supply of unkilled labor coming from the south. (You're a xenophobic racist)

[_Coggins7]

Until the Muslim religion shows some more outrage and action against what these so called "apostate Muslims" are doing with their antisemitism and terror throughout the world, I'm not sure I really think much of Islam either. Just saying, "Oh we didn't tell them to do that," just doesn't cut it for me. For the most part, I just don't believe them when they say their religion actually promotes peace.

A few observations. I have no doubt that most modern Muslims are peaceful, and have no intention of creating strife. I also have no doubt about a few facts, one of them being the tepid, perfunctory, and episodic denunciations of fundamentalist Islam from mainstream Muslim communities in the West, including America.

I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is the radicalization of most Mosques in the U.S. and Canada, which I think has instilled fear into the minds of the moderate majority. Another is, unfortunately, that Islam, very unlike Medieval Christianity (which was also a corporate church fused with the state), has no conception of any separation of religious and political spheres. Christianity went through such a phase, but the religion of Christianity requires no such fusion. Islam does, and cannot be understood apart from this.

What this means is that I'm not certain about the perspective of moderate Muslims on radical political Islam. They may not agree with terrorism and Jihad (although, according to recent polls, a disturbingly high minority here and in Europe do), but do they, at some level, agree with the Islamists as to the need to subject non-Muslims to the will of Allah? Do they wink and look away? I don't know, and I'm not claiming any answers, but the lack of a really vigorous anti-Islamist movement within the moderate Muslim world is disturbing, especially after the events if France.