Warmbier deserved his cruel torture because of white privilege

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
the definition of "deserved" at play was "earned by one's actions"

and the circumstances that brought me into the discussion a year and a half ago had to do with college students getting hours and hours of training and posters and symposia and classroom discussions on methods to avoid putting yourself in a position of vulnerability and those foolish students who chose to ignore that advice and found themselves at risk

Nobody "earns" rape, be it a nun in a convent or a stripper at a club, so using your own pet definition - nobody deserves to be raped.

i've noticed that lately too - prolly artie's moving into the advanced stages of ARD

You're like aCW, the same repetitive *insults* and just as feeble, not to mention the likely projection...
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Telling it like it is is a hissy fit??

That doesn't surprise me coming from you.


Also, that was in response to a fit of rage by Anna. Go throw your hissy fit accusation at her.

No, ranting on in the manner you did was why it was a hissy fit. anna threw no such thing, it was your reaction that went off the scale, and hardly for the first time either.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
town, there's no point arguing with you - those who recognize you for what you are won't need any argument from me to see you as you are

Well, those who know Town know that he's honest and intelligent. He doesn't obsess over people, troll or stalk them. Probably one of the few here who's never had a ban. None of the above criteria apply to you.

and those who support you won't be persuaded by any argument I can make

You don't make 'arguments'. The 'best' you do is make a declaration and assert it as fact in want of support. The 'usual' is you calling people retards and trolling up threads.

so why waste my time? :idunno:

You mean, like you've been doing for years and with a whole loads of boots for it? Hmm, why do you waste your time like that?

:idunno:


i'd rather focus on the movie i'm watching :wave2:

This is a good one:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1734135/?ref_=nv_sr_1

:)
 

ClimateSanity

New member
It's really quite remarkable. I've noted something about a short list of hard right irrationalists (it isn't inherent, only present in the group I'm thinking of that, sadly, represents the hard right more often than not around here as posters), they have a habit of declaring their reality in lieu of fact and confusing assumption with conclusion.

By way of, the liberal use of the word liberal to describe anyone who isn't in lock step with them on any particular. At first I thought they simply didn't understand what a liberal actually was or how the term functioned, that it was a point of confusion. So I spent a few weeks meeting the off claim by noting my actual voting record and history, my support of gun ownership, my belief in fiscal responsibility, my belief that a market economy, intelligently regulated, should out perform socialist economies, and my opposition to abortion, issues of distinct separation from the lion's share of people who would actually consider themselves liberals.

Nothing changed.

At that point I realized I was dealing with either irrational or dishonest people and that the only reason the liberal line was thrown out was that they saw it as a deep insult. I don't. It's just inaccurate. Conservatives fought integration and preserved slavery. Liberals defend abortion. Reason to lay serious charges of moral deficiency at their feet. The two camps have also done enormous good and not everyone in either camp supported the evil wrought in its philosophical name.

When people who throw out the word "liar" like candy at a parade routinely speak a thing they know to be untrue, they're irrational and you have to reframe your consideration and response to them. When people usurp the prerogative of God as an expression of their faith they're irrational and you have to reframe your consideration and response to them. When people echo the form of you without demonstrating the foundation of reason and support, and believe that to be sufficient or meaningful, well, you have to recognize who and what you're dealing with and find a measure of compassion for someone that bereft of reason. They really don't know what they're doing a good bit of the time. It's what happens when you feel your way through things best suited for consideration.
What in the world was that word Scrabble?
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
So, here I stand people. Anyone who calls me a liberal is welcome to the debate. Otherwise, continuing with it outside of that marks you as intellectual cowards or inveterate liars.

Come and get me or go slink away with one of a dozen excuses like Sod here cobbles.

Boo. :eek:

I almost commented on the OP but declined to do so (yesterday) because I think the issue was tangentially covered (I thought the article was decent but the last paragraph was a glaring example of what I think is the political agenda of the extreme left - to make perpetual victims out of as many non-Christian or minority groups as possible because of a hatred for Christian morality...just my 2 cents and may not be worth even that much). But the broader point of liberalism and conservativism strikes me as a serious issue that is creating (or at least fostering) that "spirit of party" that Washington warned against. Primarily, I see it as a values-driven split. And one side (the left) politicizes those values while the other side (the right) incorporates those values into their politics but does not set politics above their values. For one values and politics are virtual synonyms - for the other they are close (but not identical) companions.

So I see it as more than just a semantic nicety to distinguish between what a liberal is and what a non-liberal is. Because I would see myself more as liberal in the classical sense and so identify with some of the values that the left today espouses - but I would be called a conservative (and probably far-right by some...)

Classical Liberalism vs. Progressive Liberalism


So to bring this back to the OP, the author of that article is victim of an ideology that pretends to be liberal but is actually not liberal - rather more like the regimes that the classical liberals of the 17th and 18th century were struggling to break free from. Espousing freedom for all those that agree with them (in their resistance to what we might call Judeo-Christian morality upon which this nation was clearly based) but rejecting, censoring and persecuting those that dissent. When such people then point to their freedom to do what they want, they are arguing anarchy - not liberalism - which is society loosed from its moral moorings. Self-government still requires government - and progressives today are arguing anarchy (not liberalism).

When conservatives attack liberals, it is usually with the thought that they are (all) progressives - which is not the case. But there is also a disturbing trend (that has been going on for quite a while) to segregate private morality from public morality - a direct result of the interpretation of "separation of church and state" which was meant to protect the church from the state - on the road to tyranny.

Progressives (today) are not pro-(truly)free speech, pro-life or pro-traditional marriage etc...Conservatives are often denigrated because they are attacked for what they are against. That is the conservative nature - to resist progressivism. But it is not to (necessarily) be against (true) liberalism

Just some thoughts that may or may not advance the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Top