Toronto Girlfriends

Another Chapter in the Profiles in Courage

Yeah Papa ..... thats very true .....

Obviously they don't or else India would have not been in so much shit after Ghandi died ...

But then again, hardly anyone would really follow the path of the original ideas laid down by their founders (i.e. Founding Fathers of USA, China, Russia, etc) ...

I guess idealism is good only as ideas but once it is turned into reality ... it is very hard to implement ...

I have always been very idealisitic, Papa. Maybe your two sentence reply has taught me and illustrated something about reality to me.

But then, maybe because I am "childish" and "naive" ... I still think idealism still has its place in reality and that man is definitely born good and not evil ...

Oh, I don't know ...... hehehe

SD
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
No question that we find idealism and grab on to it

Well the parts we like. In a religious vein it is called Cafeteria "religion" you pick and choose the rules you like, bypass the ones you don't.

The same holds true for the casual followers of most ideals.

Gandhi was wiling to die for peace. He offered may times to surrender life.

So in his way he felt he could kill
but only himself.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
Sense of Life and realism

train said:
You are obviously unwilling to accept that someone else has a different opinion on this and other matters so there is little point debating . I find it amusing that those that are the quickest to condem others for ' intolerence ' are often then worst offenders .
You're very correct, Train. Liminal and his ilk will use mental gymnastics to weasel there way out of clearly defining what they stand for. There vociferous hatred for the United States blinds them to the freedom they actually want. In there minds Freedom becomes Slavery. They will focus all their criticism on the United States -- not for it's inconsistancies -- but at it's Government's behaviour no matter what it does. And most importantly, they remain slient when greater evils are done by other nation states. They lack the ability, or refuse too, make clear distinctions between the actions of Governments. E.g. They will focus all their energy at finding fault in the Government of Israel and refuse to see when Arafat's henchmen initiate force against Israeli citizens. But, when Israel retaliates they definitely see that and call it unproked aggression. They've a very strange psychology.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that it's a sense of life thing. What I mean is: Those who have a benevolent sense of life will be attracted to, the beauty and grandeur of the United States, Israel, the spread of Western ideas -- as liberating force -- across the world. Those who have a malevolent sense of life will find themselves hating, the United States, Israel and the spread of Western ideas.

It's just wrong (to put it very midly) to lump in the "idealism" of the founding fathers of the USA with that of Communism. The foundation of the United States was about respecting the natural rights of the Governed. Sure, in practice there have been inconsistancies and eroding of the foundations. However, humans live efficaciously when they can live by the use of their reason. The social system of the USA recognized the nature of man qua man, that is man as a rational animal. The USA was not idealism, but realism. Communism, is wrong in theory and evil in practice.
 

Liminal

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2003
1,575
217
63
Nice one Wired! LOL Let us in on a secret

Where or where did Train say anything about Israel, Slavery, Communism, or founding fathers?

Your so desperate for allies that you'll hijack someone else's post and rewrite it to fit your agenda.

Like I've said before, stand on your own two feet. And when you start hearing those voices, count to ten.

Ask someone to read your posts before submitting them.
 
Wired for Sound, what you have stated sounds very "American" (whatever that means ... I am unsure myself ...).

If what you say is true about American and Western ideas, then, I dare to ask you, what the hell were Oswald Spengler talking about? What the hell was Nietzsche and Heidegger talking about? What was the cause of the First World War?

What was de Tocqueville talking about when he wrote "Demoracy in America"?

I understand you are trying to make others understand your point, but, if misread slightly, it does sound like you are propagating and justifying "White Man's burden" and a re-birth in colonialism and imperialism ...

If that is what your intentions are, then, I suggest you provide a strong arguement and justification why you would say the USA, Isreal and Western ideas are so "beautiful and grandeur". These countries have their own problems and so do the the ideas they were built on.

Nonetheless, I have to agree with you that there are a great many things coming out of the West ... but, the West also has its faults just like the East, North and South ...

And BTW, Communism is from the West, but yet, you seem to dislike it ...

PS - I was once told by a teacher that "the third world is very much in the first" (just look at the US crime rate, spouse and child abuse, people begging for money on Queen St.(in Canada), the huge income gaps, etc. etc ... the list goes on)

SD
 
Last edited:

Liminal

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2003
1,575
217
63
Well done, SubDave

A good retort that addresses the points contained within the post without the shrill, overweaning verbosity of your intended audience.
 
papasmerf said:
No question that we find idealism and grab on to it

Well the parts we like. In a religious vein it is called Cafeteria "religion" you pick and choose the rules you like, bypass the ones you don't.

The same holds true for the casual followers of most ideals.

Gandhi was wiling to die for peace. He offered may times to surrender life.

So in his way he felt he could kill
but only himself.
What you say is so true Papa ... I hardly see any "hardcore" followers of any religion or faiths anymore ...

Its like "supermarket religion" (like you said), where people just pick things off the isles and place whatever they like in their trolley ...

PS - remember when the Pope came to Toronto? You had people of all faiths going to the damn thing. But, in its essence, it was a "Catholic thing". This just shows how "religiously loose and shallow" people in North America have become.

As for myself, I am one of those "supermarket guys" too ... but I am not religious at all ...

SD
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Catholics view the POPE as Christs represtnitive on earth

Could be those of other faiths also see that as so.
 
Yes, but if they weren't Catholics, then wouldn't they of "violated" their religious "duties"?

For instance, if I were a Muslim and I went to see the Pope, wouldn't Allah be pissed at me? Or if I were Christian and I saw the Pope, wouldn't the Christian God be pisses at me?

That's what I don't understand.

But of course, Juda-Chrisitian-Catholic-Islam are in its very essence "the same thing" ...
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
submissivedave said:
Yes, but if they weren't Catholics, then wouldn't they of "violated" their religious "duties"?

For instance, if I were a Muslim and I went to see the Pope, wouldn't Allah be pissed at me? Or if I were Christian and I saw the Pope, wouldn't the Christian God be pisses at me?

That's what I don't understand.

But of course, Juda-Chrisitian-Catholic-Islam are in its very essence "the same thing" ...
that is a simple answer

There is but one true God.

And the term Christian means Beliver in Christ.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
submissivedave said:
Nah ..... there can't be .....

I think this world is man made. Man created god.

"There are no mountain gods or river dragons .... man is the sole creator." - Chairman Mao Zedong
Chairman of??????

damn sounds like a club leader
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
The Concrete Bound Mentality

Liminal said:
Where or where did Train say anything about Israel, Slavery, Communism, or founding fathers?...
A concrete bound mentality is someone who is unable to abstract from events. For example: The current controversy over smoking in bars and resturants, and it's resulting ban, represents a violation of, property rights, freedom of contract, and general violations of individual liberty. So one can abstract from the issue and also discuss these principles. It's from the concretes themselves that one is able to abstract and discuss the abstract principles. A little to deep for the small mind of Liminal.

This is what I did with Train's (and submissivedave) post. I discussed the epistemological and psychological principles as the *motive* at work in the confused minds of people like Liminal, ie, failure to make proper conceptual distinctions and malevolence as the presupposition for Train's point on intolerance.

Liminal is also extremely dishonest in his representation of my post. It's obvious that I was making a comment on the post made by Train and submissivedave.
 
Aug 18, 2001
233
0
0
54
Anti-Western, Western Thinkers and Imperialism

submissivedave said:
...If what you say is true about American and Western ideas, then, I dare to ask you, what the hell were Oswald Spengler talking about? What the hell was Nietzsche and Heidegger talking about? What was the cause of the First World War? .... understand you are trying to make others understand your point, but, if misread slightly, it does sound like you are propagating and justifying "White Man's burden" and a re-birth in colonialism and imperialism .....SD
Heidegger was an anti-technological primitivist, who attacked the conceptual faculty(in the spirit of Kant). Nietzsche was a great writer and a brilliant critic of Christianity,bBut he also advocated, biological determinism, prospectivalism, moral relativism, and was one of the philosophic antecedents to post modernism -- as was Heidegger (who was also a member of the Nazi party). Post modernism hates everything Western.

So yes, there are many Western thinkers, and ideas originating in the West, that I oppose.
There are many things that are unique about the West, in contrast to the East. I will only touch on one relevant to the above quote.

-The discovery of the natural rights of man.

Imperialism has a very negative connotation thanks to the lies of the left. No question, abuses have occured and this must be strongly condemned. However I would support "Westen cultural imperialism" and what *I* mean is: bringing this discovery of natural rights, free markets and property rights, pluralism, etc, to Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan which have been threats to Western nations. As for the other nations, I think that it isn't in our self interest to solve the problems of the world. I do not think wars of liberation are sufficient enough justification for war(although tempting). Understand one thing: Individuals are sovereign (they have natural rights) nations that do not recognize these inalienable rights have no moral right to exist. At that point we have to ask: What is a reasonable foreign policy? I say: Protection of the interests of your citizens and those nations that respect liberty.
 
This is getting interesting and I respect your position.

However, "the natural rights of man" is indeed a very Western thing since maybe say ... the French Revolution? I would guess. Yet, if I undertood what I read properly, I would have to say that the philosophical/religious foundation of "natural rights of man" has indeed been derived from Christianity. Why would I say this? Because in Christian mythology, it is believed that God placed man on earth to do his own thing with his free will. Anyway, to make long story short ... along comes a dude name St. Ausgtine and writes some stuff noting the "progress of man" being closer to god by learning about our environemnt and going to school and hence the old universities had close links to the churches. In fact, universities were runned by the clergy and churches. So, the more you learn and know, the closer to god one is. Okay, pause that for a sec ....

Another important thing Augustine wrote was the perfectablity of man. How is this achieved? Again, to make a long store short ... man does so by "progressing". This is done by being closer to god and to "reveal" the unknown and to be "better" then those before us and to learn about God himself (e.g. know the Bible).

Then along comes Hegel who really believes in progress. He states that the end goal of human history (as noted in his "Philosophy of History") is freedom and that this freedom has three stages: the Oriental stage, the Greek stage and lastly and finally the Germanic stage.

If we look at this collectively, Augstine who is highly influential using Aristilian logic and the Christian faith has basically molded the character of Western civilization. And if we add Hegel ... it only strengthens the Christian belief that man is in fact "perfectable" and that humans actually "progress". These are the foundations which lead up to the belief in "the natural rights of man" ...... meaning that we believe there is something inherent in mankind, that we have the intellect to do our own thing ...

Again, this clearly means that natural rights is grounded in Christian mythology.

Nonetheless, as Nieztsche notes, human progress could possibly only be a "myth". The only way man can progress is when he is "transforming" into the superman or be degraded to the "last man". And it is this last man that Nietzsche is afraid the human race would fall to.

Yes Heidegger was a Nazi Party member but it does not make him a "bad philosopher". Ezna Pound was a fascist, George Bernard Shaw also believed in elements of elitism ... but so what? Does it make their works "bad"?

Again, I do not mean to use Nietzsche to back up my argument, but ... "how life preserving? how species advancing?" is natural rights of man? Whatever the hell you want to call it, as long as it is life advancing and specie advancing, it is in fact "beyond good and evil".

Natural rights of man is based on the individual. But what if someone believes in the collective? Again we have the un-debatable-never ending dicussion of individual Vs. collective ...

BTW, although Heidegger was anti-tech. he wa not a "primitivist" like you said he was. Heidegger was a guy who believed in reviving the glory, ideas, and spirit of the ancient Greeks. But that does not make him a primitivist ...

Furthermore, postmodern thought does not hate everything Western. In fact, postmodernism came out of the West (but could be compared to Taoism, Zen and other Eastern schools of thought). Postmodernism was "born in France" and the French had always been a group of people who spearheaded new philosophical thoughts into Germany, and then the rest of Europe.

When you are talking about the natural rights of man ..... do not forget its French origins, its Christian roots and hence a Western way of looking at mankind ...

PS - if you dislike postermodernsim, then I would believe you are not a relativist ... in that sense, you would only believe in one universal truth and that there is only one defining character which makes something "beautiful" or aesthetically appealing. Do you like art? Is art "good" or "bad"?

Thanks
 

Liminal

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2003
1,575
217
63
I'm questioning your honesty, Wired

From your post Wired..............

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by train
You are obviously unwilling to accept that someone else has a different opinion on this and other matters so there is little point debating . I find it amusing that those that are the quickest to condem others for ' intolerence ' are often then worst offenders .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're very correct, Train."

This what you were responding too. I don't see SubDaves name anywhere, nor do I find any reference to Israel, Slavery, Communism, or founding fathers?

Wired, there are growing problems associated with your accuracy and honesty that need to be addressed.
 

Liminal

Well-known member
Mar 21, 2003
1,575
217
63
Now this is a Poseur!

From Wired:

"I discussed the epistemological and psychological principles as the *motive* at work in the confused minds of people like Liminal, ie, failure to make proper conceptual distinctions and malevolence as the presupposition for Train's point on intolerance."

Guess what this was in response to?

From Train:

"Originally posted by train
You are obviously unwilling to accept that someone else has a different opinion on this and other matters so there is little point debating . I find it amusing that those that are the quickest to condem others for ' intolerence ' are often then worst offenders . "

While I disagree with Train, it's nice to read something clear that has an obvious narrative line. It's also nice to read something from someone with sufficient skills and, more importantly, sufficient self-confidence that he feels able to write simply and clearly.

Wired on the other hand, writes this hysterical sentence that just reeks with an insecure Poseur mentality. Obviously, he deeply needs approval. The use of inappropriate complexity is always the sign of a Poseur, it's part of his mask. Like name dropping and relying on the works of others.
 
Last edited:

badboy

New member
Jan 1, 2003
50
0
0
submissivedave said:
Chairman of deflowering country girls !!!
Its has been revelaed that he had a harem and that he liked to, and did have lots of virgin girls at his disposal.
I wonder how many of these poor virgin girls had to lick Mao's ass...
 

LarryL

New member
Apr 9, 2002
116
0
0
From Courage to Ass ???

I was away for a day, and the topic changed from Tony Blair's courage to Mao's ass !!. What the hell happened ?

Dave, did you lick Mao's toes or better yet, his ass ? If you did , you showed your courage ...lol
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts