elyah said:
Well Tom, ..it seems to me that you are labouring under some heavy presumptions about the Left, and an equally inflated opinion of the righteousness of the Right
I don't think so....on either account....although I will admit I have woken up to quite a few things as of late.:chuckle:
elyah said:
(I'm basing this on the first eleven words of your above comment)
The point of my first eleven words was that more agnostics and athiests are Leftists, as such their Sins are more obvious......(you don't hide something if you don't think it is wrong).....I as well suspect that a greater number of Christians are "Right Wing" than are "Left"....I have nothing to back this up and I may be wrong.....do you have some "stats." I am unaware of? Either way my point was to address what you said not to attribute "Righteousness to either side (although I am not above that
).
elyah said:
you seem to be operating under a lot of bias, semi-cultic, I think, ....and brought on by some insular, or reactive, incubated-centric, christian perspective which long surcumbed to the wily HYPE from the Right.
Hey, I think that was a shot!
(You seem to use an awful lot or words to say that you believe me to be ignorant and sheltered from reality.
)
I'm willing to bet that you are wrong.
Elyah said:
I'm only speaking to what I believe is wrong in the dispo of the Right, ... and you are already well rehearsed in what is wrong with the Left.
Allright, under this framework we can talk......the subject will be "what is wrong with the right".
elyah said:
Yet you can be very assurded of this, ... the Left did not/has not paraded itself (in these decades), as the "Moral Majority,"
Neither has everyone on the "Right".......Jerry Falwell and his group has embarrassed a large chunk of us on more than one occasion....(.esp. the Teletubbies stuff
sheesh
Being a Baptist is not always easy :chuckle:.....I'm willing to bet that a few "Leftwing Extremist" groups have been an embarrassment to you on occasion, no?
elyah said:
The Left has not set itself up as a Standard or vicar of G-d, seeking to impose and legislate its "theology" over the embracing applicabilities of the Constitution.
Hasn't it?.....the Left seems to have no problems imposing and legislating its theology against the Second Amendment.....nor against the "Free Exercise Clause" of the First.:nono:
elyah said:
It has not stood in the face of medical truth in order to perpetuate an assumed status of "self aware" consciousness on the part of a severely brain injured person. The Left has not stood in the chamber of conception to determine and define the nature and moment, depth and dimensionality of the soul's manifestation in the body of a fetus.
"Medical Truth" has been proven to be untrue before.......and the concepts of "self awareness" and the idea of the "souls manifestation" in the unborn child is not even considered by the Left....which is why they do not question it. Not one "Pro-Choice" person whom I have ever asked has been able to give me an intelligent answer to the question: What is the exact moment that the "Fetus" becomes "Human"? Some have tried, with the "at birth" answer but can never back it up with any evidence or reason as to why they say this. Tell me elyah....and be honest with yourself.....since this is the case, isn't it best to err on the side of prudence. If I am wrong than we will be allowing some people to have to deal (honorably I hope) with the consequences of their actions.....if you are wrong we are murdering little children by the millions.
elyah said:
The Left has not boldly associated itself and favoured the interests of the affluent to the compounded dismay and further disenfranchisement of the poor and stranger and the unregenerated of this Country.
No, they have instead poured trillions of hard earned tax dollars into worthless programs which have degraded families and warehoused people into slum tenements with no hope of escape.
elyah said:
The Left recognises the foolishness of everyone having a free access to gun ownership.
Gee,
that Left I could get along with....I would join them in calling for enforcement of existing gun laws to keep them out of the hands of thugs and criminals.....unfortunately the only "Left" which I have ever met seem to interested in taking
my gun....perhaps you should take up this subject with Sara Brady and a few others on the "Left".
elyah said:
The Left is not consummed with justifying gun ownership or of promoting the notion that "guns don't kill people." They do not go about comparing in jest, the absurdity of Gun deaths verses deaths through medical related reasons as a means of invalidating the stigma of the former.
No, they try to create a stigma where none exists to justify their usurpation of the U.S. Constitution........and I can't help it if they have no sense of humor.:chuckle:
elyah said:
Yes, that maybe, but you have to admit it was nothing on the order as that crowd demonstrating against Teri Schivo's feeding tube extraction... or on the same level of vemons as was evinced against former President Clinton...
Really?, lemme show ya something: :chuckle:
Warning some of the signs contain foul language....Parents monitor
http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life/
and this:
http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/
elyah said:
What you say, sound almost good, ... but if you are standing off to the side watching another person's responses, and then engaged in a mutual reaction to the common antagonist, ... and you selectively reprove the antagonist for the content of his actions, or speech or the thing offending you, ... while simultaneously allowing for the content of the other person's responses to the same antagonist, ... and that other person's responses are on the same level or of a similar nature as you found reprehensible, in the antagonist ... and you are aware of it, ... then your silence or encouragement in that setting for the other person's reactions to the antagonist, while focusing on the disliked nature of antagonist's words, ... that reaction, is a form of passive justification and agreement with the co-reactant "substance" against the antagonist (myself). You are not neutral.
Never said I was neutral......just said that I would let him speak for himself......that I had no comment.....sometimes one understands the sentiment and frustration behind it even if one disagrees with its execution.:idunno:
elyah said:
Now that you settled it in your understanding that I .."came in here swinging," ... what does your observation mean and what difference does it make? Does it mean that I had to enter this thread with a flat affect, or without strong feelings evoked by the content of the thread? Does the thread stand isolated, apart and detached from all the other threads which have been framed and posted, ... did it lack a shared momentum with the other posts or did it not speak in commonality with the manner and militancy and as you say: "our sense of humor and attitudes," as lend themselves to be taken as percisely threatening and a twisted sense of humor and attitudes?
No....it just means that you recieved what you asked for.....cause and effect.....you cannot cry foul about how you were treated....or in current parlance: Don't start none won't be none.
elyah said:
Remember, objections were raised about the content of my comparisons of guns to ... because young and impressionable minds might be visiting the site.... So what makes you think that that brand of humor could be properly and maturely understood and digested by the same minds? So now, at least you have admitted that: Yes, think of those young minds and how they might be impacted by that sense of humor and attitudes.
I was not the one who raised that particular objection....I, like you, had not thought of that.....as you have noted, we should perhaps. That is not so say that my "gunny" sense of humor is all that my children know.....for example.....when we go to the target range I will not allow "The Boy" to use anything other that "bullseye" targets.....neither do I use anything other. I do not like human silhouette targets as they have no purpose other than to desensitize the concept of shooting a person. If one is pointing a gun at a person then one had better be prepared to take a life and realize the gravity involved in that......someone will die and you had better be sure of what you are doing and why. I would hope that others on this site who have firearms teach their children the seriousness of guncraft.....from what I have seen of them on this site.....I believe they do.
elyah said:
See, your position remains one of self justification and is of the type that is more interested in who is blameworthy, and who is exonerated from the status of having "drawn first blood," instead of rethinking this matter....
Oh yeah, wouldn't want
you to have to rethink anything
elyah said:
As far as establishing a link between sexuality and guns, I qualified what I meant, and you, yourself, ... whether you know it or not, have helped to define the essence of that mindset which I was addressing, as having the gun fetish mentality.
And I shall restate it yet again, though you would wish I did not.. Specifically it is centered, exudes, engenders and ensues from the same place as that "sense of humor in mind"... (though hardly a sense of humor...) which you inadvertently addessed concerning guns..
The posit is simply this; ... "the sense of personal or collective vulnerability in the psyche or culture of the person or group, craves a hegemonic masculinity (or an empowerment) over its percieved or assumed fears, .... and so it generates the view that self survival, or lawful enforcement cannot be adequately accomplished or secured through a regulated policing system.. The reasons for this are that there is percieved to be a deficent, or absent, or distant or inept and not capable system in place for properly managing the political and culturally response to the varied and certain problems in the life of the individual and culture.... The response is the development of an appendix to the existing laws or even an outright disavowel of those laws already set, (taking the law into their own hands (via a gun). This causes the uneasy feelings to settle give a sense of empowerment over the threat.
:think:Hmmmm.....I see it as taking responsibility for oneself.......do you suppose Bernhard Goetz would feel better about his percieved or assumed fears with a screwdriver sticking out of his liver.
Were the transit police in the car with him to protect him if he needed it?:nono: You can psychoanalyize it all you want but just because you call whatever fears I may have "percieved or assumed" does not make them any less valid.....and I will take any empowerment (as long as it is legal and moral) over the threat I can get.
Perhaps you would like to debate whether self defense, ot the defense of the weak is moral.....it is still legal.....untill the "Left" changes that anyway.
