Something being popular now (while it was unpopular in the past) does not mean it is good. Intellectual debate should actually discuss ideas, instead of just cheerleading what is popular and seems to be becoming more popular.
All of the EU agrees, bipartisanly, on the issues you mentioned.
Which means that on social issues, Europe is dominated by leftism.
It is only the Republicans (and the Vatican and the Islamic states, hmmmm) which seem to be against the issues you mentioned... which gives me a great idea for anti-Republican campaign slogans... "Iran thinks abortion is bad... so does Romney", "Stand firmly with Iran and stone all gay people (and unmarried people who have sex)", "Iran doesn't want your children to learn about evolution, neither does Romney", damn, the list just goes on and on and on...
That would making the debate even more debased and ad hominem and fallacious (guilt by association, straw man) than it already is.
I don't know why I am even responding to this. You are posting AC for a reason.
That's idiotic, because there is no such thing as "atheist philosophy", unless he thinks that "I don't believe in god(s)" counts as philosophy -- in which case he's still an idiot.
"Atheist philosophy" makes as much sense as coming up with the best practices for not collecting stamps.
Absurd. There are more than one meaning to the word "atheism". One of those meanings encompasses materialism. By "atheistic philosophy" he probably meant "materialistic philosophy", which Objectivism probably is (AFAIK) along with Marxism (which very explicitly is). There is nothing "idiotic" about that.
If they are already demons. Even the Catholic Church campaigns against Paul Ryan's Economic plans.
What do you mean by "even the Catholic Church"? In economic matters, the Catholic Church is quite leftist. In immigration and environmentalism too. Regarding "affirmative action" it seems to be neutral, because I have never seen a priest or bishop touch this subject. In foreign policy, it is non-interventionist (Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq War, many bishops are against the Cuban Embargo, etc.).
The Catholic Church is only conservative regarding life and family values. It is not a right-wing organization by any sane measure.
Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.
I'm not advocating for his budget moves (I do not have enough information), but you have to do better than that. A 6% budget cut, which presumably would be reversed once the economy recovers, is not killing the Space program. His budget move does not necessarily mean that he thinks NASA in unimportant.
Regarding the defense budget, he may think we are in an emergency (due to the war in Afghanistan), which would be reversed in a few years.
Anyway, I do agree that the USA is a bit too aggressive. You should fix your electoral system so that more than two parties have a chance. A non-interventionist party (which neither the GOP or the DEMs are) would get at lot of votes.
The British have a long tradition of freedom of religion
Actually, a lot of Catholic blood was shed there; not to mention marginalization and huge fines. Their tradition of religious freedom is not deep-rooted; it is recent.
The guy in your article, however, sounds like a candidate for the Westboro Baptist Church
In economic terms, the DEM is centrist by European standards, yes.
But in social (abortion, feminism, affirmative action, immigration), the DEM is clearly leftist.
People have missed the whole New Left (Marcuse, Adorno, Foucault) development and they think leftism is dead. Couldn't be farther from the truth; it is alive and kicking.
The last thing the average Republican wants is "diversity" in their candidate. Most of them are still trying to justify that odd feeling they have Obama is not an American.
Oh please. That is because they don't like his policies; there is no evidence that racism hurts Obama. In fact, given his massive support among African-Americans and the significant percentage of DEMs who find it awesome to have a black President (and are therefore more likely to get out and vote), his skin color is a net asset.
Now, if you want to claim that the GOP is filled with paranoid conspiracy wackos, I prove to you that this holds for BOTH parties. I just need two evidences: A) Michael Moore B) Oliver Stone I rest my case.
Don't pretend that the original poster was flamebait. It wasn't.
That does sound absurd. But then explain why politicians are _overwhelmingly_ white
Not because of any active racism (which is quite small nowadays), but because African-Americans are less than 13% of the population and, additionally, they are still (probably due to inertia) under-represented in the upper classes.
male
Partly due to inertia, and partly because women are naturally (due to child-rearing) less likely to have stellar careers*, and people with mediocre careers are less likely to win an election in this money-focused society.
christian
They identify as Christians, but many of them don't practice.
. Why is it that you can _accuse_ a politician of being muslim?
The Left makes a huge hatefest when some politician is accused of having read some Josemaria Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei) book. That these same people complain about Islamophobia is a textbook example of hypocrisy.
* I'm not saying that women are bad politicians, or should be forbidden to work, or that they are all less talented. I am just saying that a significant percentage of them choose to be a housewife or to work shorter hours so they can care of their children, and this makes them less appealing as political candidates because our society is so focused on money and careers.
Economically, the DEM may be centrist by European standards. But on social issues (abortion, homosexualism, etc.) it ties with Hollande.
People forget that the Left nowadays if very focused on feminism, abortion, affirmative action, immigrants; people think that a country is "right-wing" because it has private banks... They have missed the whole New Left development.
Basing your vote on skin color, ethnicity or sex is preposterous.
We should call racism for what it is.
Even blacks themselves would benefit by the end of anti-white racism. Because the victory over racism will only be achieved when race becomes a non-issue. As long as there are pundits saying that white politicians hate blacks, that the police hates blacks, etc., blacks will be distrustful of whites, will be consumed by hate, will be more likely to drift into crime, and will be over-represented in the prison population, in a vicious circle.
So from the point of view of every one else outside the US, Obama is a somewhat right-of-center candidate, and Romney is basically Hitler. So yeah, we root for Obama.
That could also mean that Europe is dominated by leftism? When you find it normal to arrest a person for saying that "homosexuality is a sin", then you are quite leftist, yes?
People forget that the Left nowadays if very focused on feminism, abortion, affirmative action, immigrants; people think that a country is "right-wing" because it has private banks... They have missed the whole New Left development.
Regarding a black GOP president: that would be nice, yes. But remember that African-Americans are only 13% of the population, so, if you select a candidate based on his views, competence, experience and political skills (not his skin color), he is only 13% likely to be black (actually the chance is smaller, because I think Africa-Americans are still under-represented in the upper classes).
Anyway, Obama has massive support among African-Americans, and I bet there is a big number of DEM voters who are energized (and more likely to get out and vote) by the idea of a black President. So, Obama's skin color is at least "neutral", and most likely a positive asset.
The original subject: Paul Ryan is not far right. You only believe he is far right if you take your news from Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone or some other wacko.
PS: I know that Chomsky gave excellent contributions to linguistics and other areas; that does not change the fact that politically he is a wacko. Gottlob Frege admired Hitler (yeah, Godwin), and his technical genius doesn't make Hitler-admiration any less crazy.
The subject is a hidden plan to deliberately lose the presidency.
I doubt that you heard this from an official GOP document. Likely you got this from shady source that claims clairvoyance; thus my "take off the tin foil hat" comment.
The whole plan for the republicans is to lose the presidency, but remain an obstructive (or destructive) legislative force in the senate, congress and supreme court.
Oh, it's a conspiracy.Are Jews and the CIA involved?
both parties are right wing by any sane standard...
WHAT? The Dems are progressives. They strongly adopted the values of the New Left (Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Theoror Adorno). To claim they are "right wing" is astonishing... What are your sources? Michael Moore perhaps?
Just my observation from being in the middle of Tea Party-Evangelical-vote Republican always-get that Black Boy out of the Whitehouse-Bible Belt.
There are legitimate grounds to oppose President Obama; it is disingenious to yell "SHUT UP you racist!" everytime someone criticizes bailouts or oppose federal medicine.
NOTE: I am not opposing federal medicine, just arguing that we should get over skin color.
Slashdot Mirror
The European theocracies ended some 300 years ago. Islamist theocracies still endure, but Christianity is fundamentally different from Islam.
It is quite rancorous to be unable to move on after 300 years.
Can the parent post possibly be described as against Slashdot guidelines?
It is my genuine opinion, I was polite, and it is ontopic.
This is crystal-clear moderation abuse.
Something being popular now (while it was unpopular in the past) does not mean it is good. Intellectual debate should actually discuss ideas, instead of just cheerleading what is popular and seems to be becoming more popular.
Which means that on social issues, Europe is dominated by leftism.
That would making the debate even more debased and ad hominem and fallacious (guilt by association, straw man) than it already is.
I don't know why I am even responding to this. You are posting AC for a reason.
The war is scheduled to end by 2014, is it not?
Absurd. There are more than one meaning to the word "atheism". One of those meanings encompasses materialism. By "atheistic philosophy" he probably meant "materialistic philosophy", which Objectivism probably is (AFAIK) along with Marxism (which very explicitly is). There is nothing "idiotic" about that.
Why are you my freak?
http://slashdot.org/~Z34107/foes
Why are you my freak?
What do you mean by "even the Catholic Church"? In economic matters, the Catholic Church is quite leftist. In immigration and environmentalism too. Regarding "affirmative action" it seems to be neutral, because I have never seen a priest or bishop touch this subject. In foreign policy, it is non-interventionist (Pope John Paul II was against the Iraq War, many bishops are against the Cuban Embargo, etc.).
The Catholic Church is only conservative regarding life and family values. It is not a right-wing organization by any sane measure.
There are other examples mentioned in the Telegraph article.
And "same-sex marriage" has not even been approved in England yet! They are just starting on this road, and people are already being arrested.
At the rate things are going, England in 2022 will censor books that criticize homosexualism.
See what I wrote in http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40958245 and http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40957843
I'm not advocating for his budget moves (I do not have enough information), but you have to do better than that.
A 6% budget cut, which presumably would be reversed once the economy recovers, is not killing the Space program.
His budget move does not necessarily mean that he thinks NASA in unimportant.
Regarding the defense budget, he may think we are in an emergency (due to the war in Afghanistan), which would be
reversed in a few years.
Anyway, I do agree that the USA is a bit too aggressive. You should fix your electoral system so that more than two parties have a chance. A non-interventionist party (which neither the GOP or the DEMs are) would get at lot of votes.
Actually, a lot of Catholic blood was shed there; not to mention marginalization and huge fines. Their tradition of religious freedom is not deep-rooted; it is recent.
What makes you think that?
In economic terms, the DEM is centrist by European standards, yes.
But in social (abortion, feminism, affirmative action, immigration), the DEM is clearly leftist.
People have missed the whole New Left (Marcuse, Adorno, Foucault) development and they think leftism is dead. Couldn't be farther from the truth; it is alive and kicking.
He has shown no evidence of dislike of atheist _people_. He criticized an atheist _philosophy_. Those are different things.
Second, it is possible to change one's mind. I have changed mine some times. About AGW for example.
Oh please. That is because they don't like his policies; there is no evidence that racism hurts Obama.
In fact, given his massive support among African-Americans and the significant percentage of DEMs who find it awesome to have a black President (and are therefore more likely to get out and vote), his skin color is a net asset.
Now, if you want to claim that the GOP is filled with paranoid conspiracy wackos, I prove to you that this holds for BOTH parties. I just need two evidences:
A) Michael Moore
B) Oliver Stone
I rest my case.
Don't pretend that the original poster was flamebait. It wasn't.
Not because of any active racism (which is quite small nowadays), but because African-Americans are less than 13% of the population and, additionally, they are still (probably due to inertia) under-represented in the upper classes.
Partly due to inertia, and partly because women are naturally (due to child-rearing) less likely to have stellar careers*, and people with mediocre careers are less likely to win an election in this money-focused society.
They identify as Christians, but many of them don't practice.
The Left makes a huge hatefest when some politician is accused of having read some Josemaria Escrivá (founder of Opus Dei) book. That these same people complain about Islamophobia is a textbook example of hypocrisy.
* I'm not saying that women are bad politicians, or should be forbidden to work, or that they are all less talented. I am just saying that a significant percentage of them choose to be a housewife or to work shorter hours so they can care of their children, and this makes them less appealing as political candidates because our society is so focused on money and careers.
Economically, the DEM may be centrist by European standards.
But on social issues (abortion, homosexualism, etc.) it ties with Hollande.
People forget that the Left nowadays if very focused on feminism, abortion, affirmative action, immigrants; people think that a country is "right-wing" because it has private banks... They have missed the whole New Left development.
Basing your vote on skin color, ethnicity or sex is preposterous.
We should call racism for what it is.
Even blacks themselves would benefit by the end of anti-white racism. Because the victory over racism will only be achieved when race becomes a non-issue. As long as there are pundits saying that white politicians hate blacks, that the police hates blacks, etc., blacks will be distrustful of whites, will be consumed by hate, will be more likely to drift into crime, and will be over-represented in the prison population, in a vicious circle.
Do you realize that if someone applied the same theory of yours to select a _white_ candidate, he would be called Satan himself?
Racism is not only bad when it's against blacks. Anti-white racism is despicable too.
That could also mean that Europe is dominated by leftism? When you find it normal to arrest a person for saying that "homosexuality is a sin", then you are quite leftist, yes?
People forget that the Left nowadays if very focused on feminism, abortion, affirmative action, immigrants; people think that a country is "right-wing" because it has private banks... They have missed the whole New Left development.
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7952526/Last-Catholic-adoption-agency-faces-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html
! don't see evidence for your theory.
Regarding a black GOP president: that would be nice, yes. But remember that African-Americans are only 13% of the population, so, if you select a candidate based on his views, competence, experience and political skills (not his skin color), he is only 13% likely to be black (actually the chance is smaller, because I think Africa-Americans are still under-represented in the upper classes).
Anyway, Obama has massive support among African-Americans, and I bet there is a big number of DEM voters who are energized (and more likely to get out and vote) by the idea of a black President. So, Obama's skin color is at least "neutral", and most likely a positive asset.
Using sarcasm only debases the debate.
The original subject: Paul Ryan is not far right. You only believe he is far right if you take your news from Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone or some other wacko.
PS: I know that Chomsky gave excellent contributions to linguistics and other areas; that does not change the fact that politically he is a wacko.
Gottlob Frege admired Hitler (yeah, Godwin), and his technical genius doesn't make Hitler-admiration any less crazy.
Don't change the subject.
The subject is a hidden plan to deliberately lose the presidency.
I doubt that you heard this from an official GOP document. Likely you got this from shady source that claims clairvoyance; thus my "take off the tin foil hat" comment.
Oh, it's a conspiracy.Are Jews and the CIA involved?
WHAT? The Dems are progressives. They strongly adopted the values of the New Left (Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Theoror Adorno).
To claim they are "right wing" is astonishing... What are your sources? Michael Moore perhaps?
There are legitimate grounds to oppose President Obama; it is disingenious to yell "SHUT UP you racist!" everytime someone criticizes bailouts or oppose federal medicine.
NOTE: I am not opposing federal medicine, just arguing that we should get over skin color.