revprez Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 The 3rd Reich was exactly that. It's was conceived and implemented with the basic idea that patriotism could be utilized like a religion. Show me the money. Rev Prez
atinymonkey Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Show me the money. Rev Prez Patriotism is the religion of nationalism: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Nationalism exists in all political arenas. An example of American nationalism: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine Now, we can all get on with our lives.
Dak Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 All quotes from revprez This is disingenuous. You made no distinction in your first post and you still admit you have a beef with religious and patriotic ideals.no. i quite clearly stated that i have a 'beef' with people who take there religiouse beliefs too far, and explained why. i even scare-marked the 'beef', and added 'IMHuO' the first time i mentioned 'too far' and boldened and underscored the phrase 'taken too far' in my last post, simply to try and avoid the kind of misunderstanding which you seem intent on undertaking. They're also untruths. But if we want to include deliberate deception, a case could be made that some recipes described as "trouble free" amount to blatant lies. We can also say that patriotism is now similar to KFC's claim that fried chicken was part of an Atkin's diet. blatant lies with the purpose of inciting people to buy products: not to re-enforse ones beliefs.That's easy enough to disprove. I'm quite sure you believe that stand-up comics and stage actors lie as much if not more so than the clergy and patriots.1/i was not refering to clergy and patriots in general, so it is innacurate for you to take my comments about extreme patriots/religouse zelots, apply them to all patriots/clergy, and then point out that it doesnt apply to the group of people who i wasnt claiming that it applied to; 2/the lies of a stand up are intended to amuse, and not be believed: they are not, therefore, decietfulExcept you can't come up with a satisfactory standard that successfully delineates religion and patriotic types from the rest.in your oppinion. ill admit that i am actually having trouble exactly articulating my point, but im sure that if you think about it really ****ing hard, you might begin to glean just a smattering of a clue as to what im getting at. unless your stupidLike hearing examiners. So patriotism is like religion which is like the judiciary.semi-good point. yes, the judiciary also dictate our actions. not, however, our morals (generally); in addition, the judiciary also dont share any of the other charectoristics that iv mentioned.That's probably because a generous view of science notes that it is concerned with empirical matters, not an ethical or aesthetic ones. On the other hand, cookbooks often do stipulate their beauty (tastes great) and righteousness (healthy eating). lol o lol o lol o ! your really streaching with that one. not such a strech to refute tho: the aside which you quoted out of context was commenting on the presceding line, which read "they [patriotism and religion] both have a tendancy to dictate ones morals and ones actions". when viewed in context, (ie, in reply to " they both have a tendancy to dictate ones morals and ones actions (in a way in which cooking and science very rarely do) " )your reply makes no sense: no referense was made to beuty or righteousness.So is eighth grade graduation. So patriotism is like religion which is like graduating from junior high to high school.but eight grade as a whole is not. religion and patriotism as a whole are. "i am proud to be a patriot" sounds like something that might be said. "i am proud to be in the eight-grade" does not. even if it did, thats just one of many charectoristics. ill point out at this juncture in time that at no point have i claimed that religion and patriotism have a diopoly on the above charectoristics. In future, please read my post carefully, and (if you wish to address the ideas in the post) please address the consepts contained therewithin. please do not address individual lines which are taken out of context, and please do not strech my comments to the point of breaking and then point out that they're broken. thank you.
bascule Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Because the ACLU and the USA PATRIOT Act's critics are wrong, and dishonestly so in their inane quest to strike down or sunset provisions that enlarge the capability of security agencies without compromising American liberties. The ACLU was wrong? Gee, at least one Federal judge doesn't think so The "sneek and peek" provisions (which don't sunset) are blatently in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
revprez Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 The ACLU was wrong? Yes. Gee, at least one Federal judge doesn't think so And at least seven of nine Supreme Court justices found that Black Americans were of an "inferior order." What's your point? The "sneek and peek" provisions (which don't sunset) are blatently in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Really, in what way? Rev Prez
revprez Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Patriotism is the religion of nationalism: - I asked you to show me the money, not more meandering bullshit. Is your entire worldview rooted in dime-a-day slogans or is their something peculiar about this thread? Rev Prez
revprez Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 no. i quite clearly stated that i have a 'beef' with people who take there religiouse beliefs too far, and explained why. i even scare-marked the 'beef', and added 'IMHuO' the first time i mentioned 'too far' and boldened and underscored the phrase 'taken too far' in my last post, simply to try and avoid the kind of misunderstanding which you seem intent on undertaking. Except you didn't at first. Seriously, why do you expect me to believe that your careless display of hostility towards religious types earlier is mitigated by the tortured qualifications you're applying now? I'm curious, what religious people don't take their faith to far by your standard? blatant lies with the purpose of inciting people to buy products: not to re-enforse ones beliefs. I'm quite sure KFC intends to reinforce the belief of its core consumer base that their product is tasty and healthy, or will you now argue that assuring the faithful is an aim antithetical to bolstering a product's market share? 1/i was not refering to clergy and patriots in general, so it is innacurate for you to take my comments about extreme patriots/religouse zelots, apply them to all patriots/clergy, and then point out that it doesnt apply to the group of people who i wasnt claiming that it applied to 1. I don't believe you genuinely distinguish between so-called "extremists" and other religious/patriotic types. In fact, I suspect whatever delineation between believers and "extreme" believers you hold is the line between those who take their faith seriously and those who run ritual out of habit. 2. You didn't address my point about stage actors and comics lying as much if not more so than clergymen or patriots. 2/the lies of a stand up are intended to amuse, and not be believed: they are not, therefore, decietfulin your oppinion. Really? So you argue that stage actors and comics never tell or reenact stories that are blatantly false in order to perpetuate a message that maybe either true or untrue? ill admit that i am actually having trouble exactly articulating my point, but im sure that if you think about it really ****ing hard, you might begin to glean just a smattering of a clue as to what im getting at. Your point is obvious. Stupid, but obvious. unless your stupidsemi-good point. yes, the judiciary also dictate our actions. not, however, our morals (generally); in addition, the judiciary also dont share any of the other charectoristics that iv mentioned.lol o lol o lol o ! your really streaching with that one. not such a strech to refute tho: the aside which you quoted out of context was commenting on the presceding line, which read "they [patriotism and religion] both have a tendancy to dictate ones morals and ones actions". when viewed in context, (ie, in reply to " they both have a tendancy to dictate ones morals and ones actions (in a way in which cooking and science very rarely do) " ) You might want to rephrase the above. It reads like a random word generator penned it. your reply makes no sense: no referense was made to beuty or righteousness. Reference was made to value, and you argue that religion and patriotism appeal to value (ethics) in ways nothing else does. but eight grade as a whole is not. religion and patriotism as a whole are. Bullshit. You should see the looks on the faces of those parents and students. "i am proud to be a patriot" sounds like something that might be said. "i am proud to be in the eight-grade" does not. even if it did, thats just one of many charectoristics. I'm sure it does, but remember your goal is to show that "patriotism is like religion" and show the parallel to be meaningful. You've utterly failed. ill point out at this juncture in time that at no point have i claimed that religion and patriotism have a diopoly on the above charectoristics. A little late in the game to argue against the OP, don't you think? In future, please read my post carefully... I think you should worry more about owning up to what you've posted. Rev Prez
bascule Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 And at least seven of nine Supreme Court justices found that Black Americans were of an "inferior order." What's your point? Red herring anyone? But my point is I trust a federal judge's opinion on the law much more than your armchair lawyering. (re: sneek 'n' peek's unconstitutionality) Really, in what way? The Fourth Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. And sneek 'n' peek is a provision allowing searches without warrants. It's really just that simple...
Dak Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 all quotes from revprez Except you didn't at first. Seriously, why do you expect me to believe that your careless display of hostility towards religious types earlier is mitigated by the tortured qualifications you're applying now? I'm curious, what religious people don't take their faith to far by your standard? I believed that iv already qualified my definition of those who take it too far, and cannot be arsed to do so again. If you believe that i have something against religion, then search for my username, and select 'philosophy and religion' as the only forum to search. select 'show results as posts' and have a savvy through what i have previously said about religion. im sure that youll find a slightly cynical slant, but overall i dont believe it will paint the picture of someone who is anti-religiouse. even if i did have something agains religiouse people, that wouldnt nessesaraly, inandof itself, invalidate my points I'm quite sure KFC intends to reinforce the belief of its core consumer base that their product is tasty and healthy, or will you now argue that assuring the faithful is an aim antithetical to bolstering a product's market share?group1=kfc owners. group2=potential consumers. assume for this example that the statement 'kfc is yummy' is untrue. by stating 'kfc is yummy', group1 is lying in an attempt to influense the beliefs and actions of group2. the beliefs of group1 itself are unaltered by group1s claims. whereas with patriotism and religion, where group1=patriots or religiouse people, any lies circulating in group1 are desighned to effect group1; the untruths are internally directed.1. I don't believe you genuinely distinguish between so-called "extremists" and other religious/patriotic types. In fact, I suspect whatever delineation between believers and "extreme" believers you hold is the line between those who take their faith seriously and those who run ritual out of habit.no. i have respect for those who take there belifs seriously, whatever beliefs were talking about. i have little respect for those who pay lip-servise to a belief, or those who believe that there is a god and that he is vitally inportant but yet still cannot be arsed to read the bible. this is a complete inverse state of affairs to the one you assume above. again: you assume too much.2. You didn't address my point about stage actors and comics lying as much if not more so than clergymen or patriots.yes i do. youv quoted the bit where i adress your 'point' right below the bit where you claim that i havnt adressed it.Really? So you argue that stage actors and comics never tell or reenact stories that are blatantly false in order to perpetuate a message that maybe either true or untrue?no. they do. see below, about diopolys (or my last post, about diopolys, for that matter). Your point is obvious. Stupid, but obvious.so why did you need it pointing out? instead of nit-picking at the exact wording of what i said, why not divine what i meant (which isnt actually that hard) and adress what i meant.You might want to rephrase the above. It reads like a random word generator penned it.when you taken three diferent paragraphs, remove the quotes that were inbetween them, and fuse them into one jinormouse paragraph, some of the meaning is invariably lost. if it irks you, simply do not do it in future. Reference was made to value, and you argue that religion and patriotism appeal to value (ethics) in ways nothing else does.referense was made to the above elsewhere in the post. if your reply was in response to that referense, it would have been apt to have quoted that referense, as opposed to a random aside from a completely different part of the text which is making a different point.Bullshit. You should see the looks on the faces of those parents and students.hmm... maybe grade 8 is different in america than to in the uk. in the uk, every 12-13 year old is in grade 8. theres not that much pride involved.I'm sure it does, but remember your goal is to show that "patriotism is like religion" and show the parallel to be meaningful. You've utterly failed.i wasnt professing it as a fact. i was professing it as an observation. all the same, 'rezprez not acknowledging it" != "it never happened"A little late in the game to argue against the OP, don't you think?do you know what a diopoly is? well, you know what a monopoly is right? where one thing is the exclusive posession of one entity? well, a diopoly is where one thing is the exclusive posession of two entities. none of the above charectoristics are ONLY present in both religiouse people and patriots. however, that particular set of charectoristics appear together with a high frequensy in both groups; which is true of no others (although they do appear indipendantly in other groups, or together with a low frequensy in other groups)I think you should worry more about owning up to what you've posted.im not sure what iv posted anymore: you seem to have succesfully contorted it beyond recognition. try and imajine someone who is patriotic to god and christianity, and someone who is religosly worshipful and devout of there contry, and you start to see the similarity between the two. try and imajine someone who is scientifical about their attetude to there contry, or someone who reads the bible like a cook book and there is very little similarity. did you actually perform this thought experiment?
Dak Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Except you didn't at first. Seriously, why do you expect me to believe that your careless display of hostility towards religious types earlier is mitigated by the tortured qualifications you're applying now? Ok, i just want to quickly clear this up. these are my two original posts: Both can be taken too far' date=' and become oppressive things -- "burn the heritic/communist" etc; and both can be used to justify pretty nasty things, because its what god/our contry wants us to do. I believe that they both also are ways of controlling people and reenforsing social rules.[/quote'] is patriontism like religion? yes. both can go to your head, and both can propogate self-serving non-truths.youll note the inclusion of the word 'can' in those statements. i wasnt refering to all religiouse people, or all patriots. i believe i also explained later that the reason i was talking about extremists, was because there very extremeyness made their religiouse/patriotic aspects easyer to observe. I'm curious, what religious people don't take their faith to far by your standard?i dont want to drag the therad off topic, but i wish to adress this just on the offchance that iv offended any religiouse people (other than revprez, who has arguably offended himself by chosing to take offence at what i said): here is a list of the different types of religiouse people who piss me off -- if your not on the list, then none of my 'careless display of hostility*' was aimed at you: ------------------------------ religiouse people who try and stop people from doing something because 'the bible says its bad', but who dont themselves live there lives according to the bible. religiouse people who interpret the bible to suit themselves, and then try and stop people from doing things that there custom-interpretation of the bible says is wrong. religiouse people who pick-and-mix which parts of the bible to follow, and then try stop people from doing things that part of the bible they have chosen to follow says is bad religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things because the bible says its wrong, when in actual fact the bible says no such thing. religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things without actually bothering to read the bible religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things because the bible says those things are bad, but who dont actually bother to read the bible themselves revprez <-- not religiouse ------------------------ If your not on the list above, then i appologise if you took offense at what i said. revprez: i am NOT going to adress any comments aimed at the above within this thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *the scare marks mean that im not actually admiting that it existed, revprez
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Ok, i just want to quickly clear this up. these are my two original posts: Which has nothing to do with your unqualified allegation that patriotism and religion propagate lies. That you don't believe religion and patriotism to be necessarily oppressive isn't the issue or surprising; I doubt the most ardent anti-religionist here believes that Mormons are on the verge of taking over. religiouse people who try and stop people from doing something because 'the bible says its bad', but who dont themselves live there lives according to the bible. The word you're looking for is hypocrite, and it doesn't surprise me that hypocrisy is the worst sin you see in others. religiouse people who interpret the bible to suit themselves, and then try and stop people from doing things that there custom-interpretation of the bible says is wrong. Vague to be point of being meaningless; I'm sure you wouldn't consider your interpretation of Scripture to be dishonest and self-serving. religiouse people who pick-and-mix which parts of the bible to follow, and then try stop people from doing things that part of the bible they have chosen to follow says is bad. This is just restating the point implied above. religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things because the bible says its wrong, when in actual fact the bible says no such thing. Same here. religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things without actually bothering to read the bible. Like atheists? revprez I'm not religious. revprez: i am NOT going to adress any comments aimed at the above within this thread. I'm sure you won't. I'm still trying to figure out why your addressing any the other remarks I've made. After all, your argument supporting the OP is laughable. *the scare marks mean that im not actually admiting that it existed, revprez I didn't ask or expect you to admit it. Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Which has nothing to do with your unqualified allegation that patriotism and religion propagate lies. That you don't believe religion and patriotism to be necessarily oppressive isn't the issue or surprising; I doubt the most ardent anti-religionist here believes that Mormons are on the verge of taking over.I know. which is why i quoted above, to show what it was in referense to. it was a refutation of your accusation that i was hostile towards religiouse types. this is a seperate issue, but one which i wanted to clear up, due to the fact that i am not anti-religiouse, as you accused me of being. re: the rest, i already said within the post that i wouldnt respond to anything that you say about them, cos i dont want to drag this thread off topic; however, i would like to point out that "religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things without actually bothering to read the bible" should have read "religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things because the bible says those things are bad, without actually bothering to read the bible themselves" Iv edited my post to fix it. Also, I'm sure you wouldn't consider your interpretation of Scripture to be dishonest and self-serving.i dont know (and it is irelivant) wether you ment to imply it or not, but i am not religiouse.
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Red herring anyone? But my point is I trust a federal judge's opinion on the law much more than your armchair lawyering. Specifically you trust one Central California federal judge's opinion over my armchair lawyering and DOJ. And to what extent? Over a definition of "expert advice or assistance" that was tightened the following December. It is not a red herring to point out your appeal to authority and your refusal to stand on the substance. And sneek 'n' peek is a provision allowing searches without warrants. It's really just that simple... No, its not. You need to walk us through how you go from prohibiting "unwarranted search and seizure" to prohibiting "search and seizure without the judicial instrumental known as a 'warrant.' " Otherwise, you might as well toss aside probable cause while your at it. It's really that simple. Rev Prez
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I know. which is why i quoted above, to show what it was in referense to. it was a refutation of your accusation that i was hostile towards religiouse types. Religious types and patriots (who you likely view as nationalist neanderthals), remember? You don't like either. After all, they propagate and/or perpetuate lies. ...this is a seperate issue... Not unless you have an absurdly nuanced view on the ethics of lying. "religiouse people who try and stop people from doing things because the bible says those things are bad, without actually bothering to read the bible themselves" Which simply restates the point you made about about religious types who cite Scripture that doesn't exist. Rev Prez
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I believed that iv already qualified my definition of those who take it too far, and cannot be arsed to do so again. No you haven't, although its clear now you refuse to do so. If you believe that i have something against religion, then search for my username, and select 'philosophy and religion' as the only forum to search. select 'show results as posts' and have a savvy through what i have previously said about religion. im sure that youll find a slightly cynical slant, but overall i dont believe it will paint the picture of someone who is anti-religiouse. I can base that entirely on your performance in this thread; that suffices for me. even if i did have something agains religiouse people, that wouldnt nessesaraly, inandof itself, invalidate my points... No, it wouldn't. I id nvalidated your points long before I pointed out your beef with religious types. group1=kfc owners. group2=potential consumers. assume for this example that the statement 'kfc is yummy' is untrue. by stating 'kfc is yummy', group1 is lying in an attempt to influense the beliefs and actions of group2. the beliefs of group1 itself are unaltered by group1s claims. whereas with patriotism and religion, where group1=patriots or religiouse people, any lies circulating in group1 are desighned to effect group1; the untruths are internally directed. Then you have no idea how organizations work. KFC put up a spirited, positive defense that its product was Atkins friendly. I don't think there's any evidence that KFC's marketing and legal disbelieved the hype. no. i have respect for those who take there belifs seriously, whatever beliefs were talking about. i have little respect for those who pay lip-servise to a belief, or those who believe that there is a god and that he is vitally inportant but yet still cannot be arsed to read the bible. So in your view the quiet, least doctrinaire of the believers are more serious than the traditionalists? this is a complete inverse state of affairs to the one you assume above. again: you assume too much.yes i do. youv quoted the bit where i adress your 'point' right below the bit where you claim that i havnt adressed it.no. they do. see below, about diopolys (or my last post, about diopolys, for that matter). Uh, what? so why did you need it pointing out? instead of nit-picking at the exact wording of what i said, why not divine what i meant (which isnt actually that hard) and adress what i meant. I have. I think you mean to say that you don't like strong religious belief and people who aspire to a strict life of faith, and I think you see patriotism and religion as typically bad things. And as dumb as those ideas are, I think you actually believe you can defend them. I'm still waiting for you to do so. when you taken three diferent paragraphs, remove the quotes that were inbetween them, and fuse them into one jinormouse paragraph, some of the meaning is invariably lost. if it irks you, simply do not do it in future. I suggest you press the quote button on your post, go to the relevant piece, and then actually give a damn about posting something readable. referense was made to the above elsewhere in the post. if your reply was in response to that referense, it would have been apt to have quoted that referense, as opposed to a random aside from a completely different part of the text which is making a different point. What the hell are you talking about? i was professing it as an observation. all the same, 'rezprez not acknowledging it" != "it never happened" In which case we're done. If you're not interested in the facts, we can move on. do you know what a diopoly is? It's your new favorite word. did you actually perform this thought experiment? Lots of crank "thought experiments" on these boards. Why should I consider yours? Rev Prez
Dak Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Im still not going to expand upon the points about 'religiouse people who piss me off': it was merely a disclamer, with the sole intent of making it clear that i do not dispise all religiouse people. i feel it has achieved this, and needs no further discussion. if you realy want to discuss them, create another thread. Religious types and patriots (who you likely view as nationalist neanderthals), remember? You don't like either. After all, they propagate and/or perpetuate lies.were playing the 'lets make shit up about the other person' game, are we? well, i should have expected as much from someone who hates athiests as much as you quite clearly do. and is obviously a transvestite. from mars. brief recap of whats already been said: word 'can' was present; dont have anything against the majority of patriots. Not unless you have an absurdly nuanced view on the ethics of lying. this makes no sence in the context of what you quoted. are you actually bothering to read my posts? or are you just picking snippets which you are under the delusional impression that you can construct 'intelligent' refutations to?
Dak Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 No you haven't, although its clear now you refuse to do so.translates: no, im not reading any of your postsI can base that entirely on your performance in this thread; that suffices for me. translates: Oh no! its possible that he has his opinions down on record, which could well prove me wrong. i know! ill ignore them. mwa ha ha.No, it wouldn't. I id nvalidated your points long before I pointed out your beef with religious types. suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you had. Then you have no idea how organizations work. KFC put up a spirited, positive defense that its product was Atkins friendly. I don't think there's any evidence that KFC's marketing and legal disbelieved the hype.i dont think there is any evidence that they belived the hype. tu she, ne?So in your view the quiet, least doctrinaire of the believers are more serious than the traditionalists?Im not sure how you got that from what i said, but no: not nessesaraly.Uh, what? just out of interest, are you hitting the 'quote' button and reading my post from the reply box? if so, it wont show the quotes that make it clear what im talking about, and will also merge paragraphs together, resulting in paragraphs like the one you quoted. if so, i sujjest you read my post in the thread and THEN hit the quote button. Otherwize, a vast simplification of what i was saying would be: no, thats not what i said. I have. I think you mean to say that you don't like strong religious belief and people who aspire to a strict life of faith, and I think you see patriotism and religion as typically bad things. And as dumb as those ideas are, I think you actually believe you can defend them. I'm still waiting for you to do so.youll have to wait a long time then, because -- wait for it -- THATS NOT WHAT IM SAYING.I suggest you press the quote button on your post, go to the relevant piece, and then actually give a damn about posting something readable.if you read my post before pressing the quote button, then the post makes more sence...What the hell are you talking about?...you also get to see my quotes, so you know which part of your post im replying to, and so would, in fact, know what i was talking about.In which case we're done. If you're not interested in the facts, we can move on.i agree with you, but for different reasons.It's your new favorite word. i do quite like it, actually. it has a nice ring to it. 'diopoly'. Lots of crank "thought experiments" on these boards. Why should I consider yours?oooooooooooh, i dunno... possibly because its relevant to what were discussing? maybe? just a thought.
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Im still not going to expand upon the points about 'religiouse people who piss me off': it was merely a disclamer' date=' with the sole intent of making it clear that i do not dispise all religiouse people. i feel it has achieved this, and needs no further discussion. if you realy want to discuss them, create another thread.[/quote'] And yet you persist. were playing the 'lets make shit up about the other person' game, are we? Then play with yourself. this makes no sence in the context of what you quoted. Sure it does. You argue that patriotism and religion are uniquely similar in that they propagate lies. Unless you have an absurdly nuanced view on the ethics of lyings, then that remarks tells us a lot about how you feel about religious and patriotic types. are you actually bothering to read my posts? Unfortunately, yes. or are you just picking snippets which you are under the delusional impression that you can construct 'intelligent' refutations to? If I'm picking snippets, its to home in the few substantive points you actually spell out (and/or spell correctly). Rev Prez
atinymonkey Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I asked you to show me the money' date=' not more meandering bullshit. Is your entire worldview rooted in dime-a-day slogans or is their something peculiar about this thread? Rev Prez[/quote'] Interesting, you mock my post for what you call 'dime a day slogans' but continue to repeat nonsensical expressions. I'll call my reply succinct and well referenced, but apparently I'm mistaken. What precisely do you think is the appropriate response to 'show me the money'? Are you perhaps under the impression that I will offer you an American football contract? Are you hoping I'll inanely repeat 'show me the money' with you ad infinitum? Is there perhaps some cryptic retort buried underneath Cameron Crowes dialogue that only you are able to perceive? Perhaps you would better understand a reciprocal film quote, but I'm unable to discern what you are wanting. It's all moot, as crass gibes don't go any way to substantiating your point of view. Hopefully, we can get back to the topic of the thread once your ad hominem attacks have died down. You are not going to be presented with many lucid counterpoints while you persist in strawmanning, derogatory commentary, bigotry and bile. And, for the love of jebus, stop writing your tag into each post. It's completely unnecessary.
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 What precisely do you think is the appropriate response to 'show me the money'? That would be providing evidence that supports your very novel belief that the 3rd Reich intended and did use patriotism as it would religion. Rev Prez
atinymonkey Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 That would be providing evidence that supports your very novel belief that the 3rd Reich intended and did use patriotism as it would religion. It would be my pleasure to provide reading material to educate you: - A rather nice article about authoritarianism and nationalism in the Reich: - http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html The article, although short, also provides a comparison with US politics. An overview of the development of nationalism in Germany, leading into the creation of the Reich: - http://www.pganuszko.freeuk.com/dissertation/nationalism.htm This also outlines the development of the Nationalist Religion in the Reich. In the words of Adolph, a minister in Germany at the time: - http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/docs/aims.html A Book review of a Historians account of Religion and Nationalism in the Reich: - http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewstr17.htm Or, you could go straight to the horses mouth and read Albert Speers account of how the National socialist party utlised religion: - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684829495/qid=1118754001/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-5706840-0859919?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Which is the first hand account of events within the Reich chancellery
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 It would be my pleasure to provide reading material to educate you: And how do any of these support your assertion that the Third Reich used patriotism as it would religion? Rev Prez
atinymonkey Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 And how do any of these support your assertion that the Third Reich used patriotism as it would religion? Rev Prez Given that there is a entire book on the subject, how do they not? If we are just going to play the handwaving game, in the hope evidence will disappear, I'd rather know now.
Dak Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 All quotes from revprez Very briefly: And yet you persist.untrueThen play with yourself.nonsensicleSure it does. You argue that patriotism and religion are uniquely similar in that they propagate lies. Unless you have an absurdly nuanced view on the ethics of lyings, then that remarks tells us a lot about how you feel about religious and patriotic types.thats not exactly what i said, which invalidates the conclusion that you based upon it.Unfortunately, yes.i doubt it. if you were, then your refutations would likely be at least relavant, and you would be aware of the context in which things were said.If I'm picking snippets, its to home in the few substantive points you actually spell out (and/or spell correctly). OMFG, LOOK EVERY ONE: DAK CANT SPELL!!! for your information: wun + wun = too is still factually correct, dispite the fact that its spelt rong; my lack of ability to spell is irrelevant.
revprez Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Given that there is a entire book on the subject, how do they not? Because you haven't shown that they do. If we are just going to play the handwaving game, in the hope evidence will disappear, I'd rather know now. Let's play the "make your case" game. That's where you actually present evidence or shut up. Rev Prez
Recommended Posts