LS.com homepage  •   LS.com FAQ  •   Resources
In the media  •   Articles  •   WIKI
It is currently 24 Apr 2014, 09:24

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


This is the one of the guest-viewable discussion areas. If you haven't already, sign up as a user (everything is, and always will be, completely free)! Users can engage in discussion in both guest-viewable and member-only subforums. There's also an arcade.

Please post in good faith. We support freedom of speech here but deliberately inflammatory posts will be deleted. Use common sense when writing posts and be sure to read the guidelines (and weep) before posting.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 00:46 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
fschmidt wrote:
Unrequited Lust wrote:
Considering he's an atheist, it's a little odd that he's pissed about the breaking of commandments #1-4, which have absolutely nothing to do with morality but more to do with worshiping a tyrant.

Unrequited Lust represents modern man, not understanding history, religion, or morality. Machiavelli understood all 3 and, in "Discourses on Livy", rightly said:

"whoever considers well Roman history will see how much Religion served in commanding the armies, in reuniting the plebs, both in keeping men good, and in making the wicked ashamed."

"And as the observance of divine institutions is the cause of the greatness of Republics, so the contempt of it is the cause of their ruin, for where the fear of God is lacking it will happen that that kingdom will be ruined or that it will be sustained through fear of a Prince, which may supply the want of Religion. And because Princes are short lived, it will happen that that Kingdom will easily fall as he (Prince) fails in virtue. Whence it results that Kingdoms which depend solely on the virtue of one man, are not durable for long, because that virtue fails with the life of that man, and it rarely happens that it is renewed in (his) successor"
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:11

"The Princes of a Republic or a Kingdom ought therefore to maintain their Republic's religions, and in consequence well and united. And therefore they ought in all things which arise to foster it (even if they should judge them false) to favor and encourage it: and the more prudent they are, and the more they understand natural things, so much more ought they to do this. And because this practice has been observed by wise men, there has arisen the beliefs in the miracles that are celebrated in Religion, however false; for the prudent ones have increased (their importance) from whatever origin they may have derived and their authority gives them credence with the people."
http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy1.htm#1:12


Oh okay, the guy who said that American women deserve to be raped and that the Jews deserved the holocaust because they were liberals is lecturing me on morality. Unfortunately, this isn't a fschmidt statement that shocks me.

I just find it odd that because you don't believe in a personal God, and certainly don't believe in the Yahweh, you think we should look to the first four commandments as a source of morality, you know, those arbitrarily superstitious rules from Bronze Age Middle Eastern nomads. Pretty sure society has progressed a lot since then.

So fschmidt, I'll bite. What do the following things have to do with being a good person?

1. Don't believe in any other God except Yahweh (pretty sure you're okay with believing in whatever fictitious God that supports your view that women are inferior to men, it doesn't have to Yahweh).

2. Don't make sculptures

3. Don't say say God or Jesus as an idiom

4. Don't work on Saturday (or Sunday)

Do you honestly believe the above is necessary for a moral society?


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 00:50 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
fschmidt wrote:
New-Yorker wrote:
Unrequited Lust wrote:
So fschmidt is an atheist (although he'll insist that he's a pantheist) but he looks to the Ten Commandments as a paragon of morality. He also mistakes the Torah for the Tanakh. Again.

I agree that fschmidt at times contradicts himself. But as for confusing between Torah and Tanakh, there's no basis for confusion, because the wider meaning of the worlds "Torah" includes not only the Pentateuch but also the entire Tanakh, as well as the Oral tradition.

In any case, the ten commandments are in the Pentateuch, so Unrequited Lust has no idea what he is talking about.


The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The Pentateuch is a pretty much a synonym for that. True, the ten commandments are in this, specifically Exodus and Deuteronomy.

But in the FSTDT quote (which is on such a high level of batshit insanity even for you) you specifically refer to the Torah as the Old Testament which is unambiguously wrong. I just assumed you were making the same mistake again.

Then again, this is tautology, so who really gives a fuck.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 04:07 
Offline
Borat

Joined: 28 Jun 2009, 21:27
Posts: 1756
Thanks: 4
Thanked:
90 times in 69 posts
canamoeba wrote:
Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.


While this doesn't sound as offensive as fschmidt's persistent Holocaust analogy (and I appreciate your comment on the fact that such analogy is indeed offensive to those whose family was affected), your parallel with Apartheid is still very far-fetched. Apartheid in South Africa used to be official; the lack of attraction on behalf of most American young women to guys "like us" (I agree with the quotes as the whole concept is questionable) is solely a matter of taste. You woudn't go for an unattractive woman, would you?

Unrequited Lust wrote:
you think we should look to the first four commandments as a source of morality, you know, those arbitrarily superstitious rules from Bronze Age Middle Eastern nomads.


The problem is that, without the system of God-given commandments, there's no clear guideline as of what is moral and what is immoral. Ancient Greeks' infamous homosexual relationships between an older man and a younger man must have been considered noble by them, but can hardly be considered as such even by the modern Western soceity (except some fervently pro-gay activists). And the Nazis sincerely believed that killing Jews and others whom they didn't see suitable for life is something they had to do for the sake of humanity. Muslim terrorists sincerely believe that their terrorist activity (which they refer to as jihad) is encourageable and morally correct. Same holds true for the Crusaders of the early Middle Ages. Obviously, you can't rely on all those "values". Only the commandments given by God (and whitnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed it down the generations) can be used as a standard.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 04:14 
Offline
LS.com Legend

Joined: 19 Nov 2009, 00:48
Posts: 5936
Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 2013
Thanked:
1093 times in 726 posts
Quote:
You woudn't go for an unattractive woman, would you?

Yes, I would, up to a certain limit.

I would never refuse a woman for being socially awkward, while women make things very hand for socially awkward men.

And yes, I would accept an ugly women. It's still better than incel. I would have no issue about dating a 300 lb woman, a woman who'd be at least a 2/10 (as a 6.5 I don't think I have to stoop as low as go for a 1), and would accept to date a single mom.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 05:56 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
Unrequited Lust wrote:
you think we should look to the first four commandments as a source of morality, you know, those arbitrarily superstitious rules from Bronze Age Middle Eastern nomads.


The problem is that, without the system of God-given commandments, there's no clear guideline as of what is moral and what is immoral. Ancient Greeks' infamous homosexual relationships between an older man and a younger man must have been considered noble by them, but can hardly be considered as such even by the modern Western soceity (except some fervently pro-gay activists). And the Nazis sincerely believed that killing Jews and others whom they didn't see suitable for life is something they had to do for the sake of humanity. Muslim terrorists sincerely believe that their terrorist activity (which they refer to as jihad) is encourageable and morally correct. Same holds true for the Crusaders of the early Middle Ages. Obviously, you can't rely on all those "values". Only the commandments given by God (and whitnessed by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have passed it down the generations) can be used as a standard.[/quote]

What the hell? All those examples are because of religion. Ancient Greece: Greek mythology. Nazi Germany: Positive Christianity (google it). Muslim terrorists: Radical Islam. Crusaders: Catholicism.

On the other hand, look at how far ahead Europe is because they're secular. Lower rates of violence all around (except that of violence toward women in a few areas like Sweden) and lower degrees of wealth inequality.

Even then, a secular state is guaranteed by our Constitution, the Establishment Clause to be specific.

And no, the commandments were given by God and witnessed by "hundreds of thousands if not millions of people" lol. There is absolutely zero evidence that there was ever an exodus of about a million Jews from Egypt into Israel. There's no written records of it (nor the Israelites subsequent genocides (yeah, plural) against the people living in and around the Promised Land) and no archaeological evidence that supports this. In the end, it's just a fairytale, like those of Odin or Zeus.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 06:29 
Offline
Borat

Joined: 28 Jun 2009, 21:27
Posts: 1756
Thanks: 4
Thanked:
90 times in 69 posts
Unrequited Lust wrote:
On the other hand, look at how far ahead Europe is because they're secular.


And how far ahead are they? Eurozone is in a deep fiscal crisis, with some of its members almost defaulting on their debts. Is that called "far ahead"? And the moral values in the contemporary Western society are causing the decay of that society. Europe appears especially prone to this: birth rates are extremely low by Europeans but extremely high by Muslims. The secular Europe, unfurtunately, appears to be "far ahead" in terms of the gravity of its existential threat.

Unrequited Lust wrote:
There is absolutely zero evidence that there was ever an exodus of about a million Jews from Egypt into Israel.


Today's Jews are direct descendants of the Jews who left Egypt and settled in Israel. There is no way this story could have possibly been made up without being whitnessed by millions. We even know the exact dates of the Exodus, the splitting of Red Sea, and the Receivign of Torah at Mount Sinai. Exact dates! How do you imagine making such a thing up so that the exact dates of the described events are known and remembered?

Unrequited Lust wrote:
and no archaeological evidence that supports this.


Are you expert in archeology? Have you ever been to Israel? If not, all your atheistic preaching has no credibility. Also, the world itself simply could not have come to existance by a series of coincidences; this would've been more of a miracle than what Torah relates about the creation of the world. And our emotions, fears, etc., are too complicated to be a mere result of chemical reactions in our brain; rather, it's a real testimony of the existance of soul.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
The following users would like to thank New-Yorker for the above post:
nookie monster, Malo
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 07:34 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
I never knew that Love-Shy contained this many religious fundamentalists. But whatever, I destroy dogma for a living.

Okay, #1: The eurozone is an monetary crisis, not a fiscal one. Unless you have a link that correlates the "moral decay" (which isn't even a measurable thing) and a deregulated financial sector, then shut up. Not sure what a high birth rate of Muslims has to do with anything unless you're a bigoted Islamophobe.

#2. There are no exact dates. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves that these supernatural events actually happened. They are myths. They are part of Abrahamic mythology.

#3. Are you fucking stupid? There is no archaeological evidence. None. This indicates that it didn't fucking happen because an event this big would've left, well, something. And there is nothing.

As for the solar system: Google nebula and accretion disk.

Emotions are definitely caused by chemicals. We have fucking drugs that manipulate your emotions like anti-depressants. And guess what? These drugs don't contain any immaterial supernatural woo! They contain fucking chemicals!

When were you indoctrinated? Studies have shown you're most prone between ages 4-14.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 14:06 
Offline
Anti-feminist extremist
User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 08:55
Posts: 3747
Location: El Paso, TX, USA
Thanks: 245
Thanked:
728 times in 447 posts
canamoeba wrote:
nookie monster wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
I don't see any difference between a Jew in Nazi Germany and someone like me in America.

Nobody in America is loading you into a cattle car to be shipped off to a death camp like Auschwitz to be killed in a gas chamber or oven.

I countered this affirmation a while ago, and will do it again:

Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is an insult to anyone who survived or lost family members in the Holocaust.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.

_________________
Incel Solution | Biblic Judaism - Forum & Online Synagogue Service


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 18:05 
Offline
Comme un cheveu sur la soupe
User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011, 02:40
Posts: 1372
Thanks: 18
Thanked:
14 times in 9 posts
fschmidt wrote:
canamoeba wrote:
nookie monster wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
I don't see any difference between a Jew in Nazi Germany and someone like me in America.

Nobody in America is loading you into a cattle car to be shipped off to a death camp like Auschwitz to be killed in a gas chamber or oven.

I countered this affirmation a while ago, and will do it again:

Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is an insult to anyone who survived or lost family members in the Holocaust.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.


You're insane. You're really drawing a comparison between Nazism and Liberalism?


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 18:16 
Offline
HULK SMASH!

Joined: 23 May 2010, 08:14
Posts: 5232
Thanks: 343
Thanked:
894 times in 570 posts
lemonlime wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
canamoeba wrote:
nookie monster wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
I don't see any difference between a Jew in Nazi Germany and someone like me in America.

Nobody in America is loading you into a cattle car to be shipped off to a death camp like Auschwitz to be killed in a gas chamber or oven.

I countered this affirmation a while ago, and will do it again:

Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is an insult to anyone who survived or lost family members in the Holocaust.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.


You're insane. You're really drawing a comparison between Nazism and Liberalism?


It's a fair comparison. Your average rabid left wing feminist is every bit as closed-minded and unpleasant as your average skinhead thug. I'm not a big fan of fschmidt, yet I am able to comprehend this. You cannot get your tiny mind around this 'coz you are part of the problem.

_________________
OUR DAY IS COMING. EXPECT NO MERCY WHEN IT DAWNS. FOR WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN NONE.


Last edited by Cenobite on 24 Feb 2012, 20:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 20:25 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
fschmidt wrote:
canamoeba wrote:
nookie monster wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
I don't see any difference between a Jew in Nazi Germany and someone like me in America.

Nobody in America is loading you into a cattle car to be shipped off to a death camp like Auschwitz to be killed in a gas chamber or oven.

I countered this affirmation a while ago, and will do it again:

Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is an insult to anyone who survived or lost family members in the Holocaust.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.


Funny how practically every intellectual is "liberal." Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, Howard Zinn, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc.

Aren't you a socialist anyway? What the hell do you even mean by "liberal"? The opinion that women should have equal rights?


Last edited by Unrequited Lust on 22 Feb 2012, 20:42, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 20:27 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
lemonlime wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
canamoeba wrote:
nookie monster wrote:
fschmidt wrote:
I don't see any difference between a Jew in Nazi Germany and someone like me in America.

Nobody in America is loading you into a cattle car to be shipped off to a death camp like Auschwitz to be killed in a gas chamber or oven.

I countered this affirmation a while ago, and will do it again:

Being a guy "like us" in America/Canada is like being a Black in Apartheid-era South Africa.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is an insult to anyone who survived or lost family members in the Holocaust.

The Apartheid analogy is wrong. Both Nazism and Liberalism are designed to exterminate a certain segment of the population. Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people. Apartheid simply aims separation. I wish we had Apartheid where decent and intelligent people would be separated and put into our own ghettos. But Liberalism has no interest in separation of any kind. Liberalism is designed for the complete elimination of decent and intelligent people, giving us a pure Idiocracy.

There are some differences between Nazism and Liberalism. Nazism, coming from Germany, was more efficient and aimed for rapid extermination, while Liberal extermination is a slower process. This is why we have no death camps. Also, Nazism was intentional, the Germans being fairly intelligent people, while Liberalism is unintentional, since Liberals are fools. Liberals do not consciously want to eliminate anyone, but they are repulsed by decent people and, through Feminism, they have unintentionally managed to create a system that is highly effective at genetically eliminating decent people. And this is why all of you incels are here.


You're insane. You're really drawing a comparison between Nazism and Liberalism?


I almost feel like just sending a transcript of everything fschmidt has ever said to CPS to free his children from his sheer bigotry and idiotic perception of the world.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 20:43 
Offline
Don Draper wannabe but won't admit it
User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2010, 10:52
Posts: 1231
9 times in 6 posts
Cenobite wrote:
It's a fair comparison. Your average rabid left wing feminist is every bit as closed-minded and unpleasant as your average skinhead thug. I'm not a big fan of fschmidt, yet I am able to comprehend this. You cannnot get your tiny mind around this 'coz you are part of the problem.

Oh c'mon Mikey, you don't sincerely believe that. I specifically remember you criticizing Margaret Thatcher for cutting spending directed at helping the working poor, and your family suffered as a result. Guess who fought her tooth and nail every step of the way and somewhat succeeded in reversing her supply side venture? The Labour Party. Guess what the Labour Party is? Liberal.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 22 Feb 2012, 20:52 
Offline
Anti-feminist extremist
User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 08:55
Posts: 3747
Location: El Paso, TX, USA
Thanks: 245
Thanked:
728 times in 447 posts
Unrequited Lust wrote:
What the hell do you even mean by "liberal"?

This is a liberal:
Unrequited Lust wrote:
I almost feel like just sending a transcript of everything fschmidt has ever said to CPS to free his children from his sheer bigotry and idiotic perception of the world.

Intolerant just like a Nazi.

_________________
Incel Solution | Biblic Judaism - Forum & Online Synagogue Service


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
PostPosted: 23 Feb 2012, 03:16 
Offline
Borat

Joined: 28 Jun 2009, 21:27
Posts: 1756
Thanks: 4
Thanked:
90 times in 69 posts
Quote:
Not sure what a high birth rate of Muslims has to do with anything unless you're a bigoted Islamophobe.


Why wouldn't you try living in Saudi Arabia for at least a while and see how nicely they would treat you, a gread defender of all Muslims (in spite of being an atheist fanatic himself)? The point is that European population is shrinking in numbers, while Muslim population is growing. And unlike you, they believe in what their religion says (yes, it opposes mine, but is based on the same initial premises); and, more importantly, they act on what they believe in. Without further "justifying" them (because I don't), I'm only trying to make a point that your liberalism woudn't pay any dividends under their dictatorship.

Quote:
There are no exact dates. There is not a single peer reviewed study that proves that these supernatural events actually happened. They are myths. They are part of Abrahamic mythology.


You can repeat this mantra hundreds of thousands of times, but it won't make it any more true. We celebrate Jewish holidays on dates where the celebrated event took place historically. And we are descendants of Abraham, so, if he's a myth, then I must be a myth as well.

Quote:
Are you fucking stupid? There is no archaeological evidence. None. This indicates that it didn't fucking happen because an event this big would've left, well, something. And there is nothing.


If anybody is fucking stupid, it's someone who denies the evidence. There is an exact location in Hebron where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are buried along with their respective wives (except Rachel whose grave is also identified). That's one of many other evidences of Biblical truth. But you've never been there, so why bother. It's easier to deny than to come and check.

Quote:
As for the solar system: Google nebula and accretion disk.


It's nothing more than demagogy. Only a naive dumbass can blindly believe that anything in the Universe came to existance by accident. From the complicated miscroscopic world of the cell (or even the molecule) to the infinite world of outer space and halaxies, to the precision of the so-called laws of nature - everything points to the existance of the Master.

When I was indoctrinated? If anybody is indoctrinated, it's you, because you seem to deny the obvious. As for me, I gradually came to realization that the world is neither accidental, nor masterless. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely he is to realize that.

fschmidt wrote:
Nazism targeted certain races while Liberalism targets decent and intelligent people.


I'm not sure about the accuracy of your definition of Liberalism. Liberalism is definitely not that holy, but accusing it in targeting decent and intelligent people as a matter of principle is totally out of context.


Top
 Profile  
Thanks  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 214 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group