Do All Men Have Wondering Eyes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tdager said:
Roll your eyes all you want Rev, that IS what you implied.
Click to expand...

Um, no. :rolleyes:

I rolled my eyes (and am doing it again) because that -- clearly, obviously, and easy-to-understand -- "IS" not what I implied. From my, what, second or third post in this thread:

ReverendSlappy said:
:rolleyes:

This one's open-and-shut: The poster has brought up his personal opinion of what kind of an "example" he believes a political official -- it's entirely unimportant which one it is -- is setting, what kind of "standard in public" he "expects" from that official, how he believes the official should be "representing my country", and what kind of "leader" he believes the official is being.

Clear as day: SZ.
Click to expand...

The fact that those specific traits -- which are all political in nature -- of a political leader were brought up, that makes it political. As I also mentioned -- numerous times -- of course it's possible to talk about a political figure and the conversation not be political in nature; I even used examples of a person's golf swing and choice of clothing as an example to demonstrate as much. Apparently you missed that post. :rolleyes:

This conversation, however, clearly was political (and why the MC continues to choose to not enforce its clearly-defined policy still goes without any form of explanation.)

And I'll continue to roll my eyes so long as you or anybody else continues to either not understand the very simple, very clear, and yet-to-be-refuted point I've made or continues to purposefully distort it.
 
Last edited:
beating_a_dead_horse.jpg



Trapper John
 
ReverendSlappy said:

This conversation, however, clearly was political (and why the MC continues to choose to not enforce its clearly-defined policy still goes without any form of explanation.)
Click to expand...

I think it is because the MC is a bunch of right wing wackos who only come down whenever there is a lefty involved.

Hey, if the righties can claim the MC is a bunch of lefty sympathizers then we should be able to claim the opposite. ;) :D:D

Ok the above was a joke and I don't really believe that the MC is aligned in either way. I know that there are members of the MC that are on both sides and I think most of the time they balance out.

But this thread has met all three of the SZ criteria, it has been political, it has discussed religious views, and it has been contentious. It should have been moved a long time ago.

Why it has not been moved is a mystery. The MC does know about the thread as several of them have posted in it. But if they do not want to move it so be it. Time to let it go. But this thread will be brought up as an example of allowing politics, religion, and contentious subjects to occur outside of the SZ. IMHO the reasons that the SZ was created are now negated. Those topics should just be allowed back into the HT and we can get rid of the pretense of opting into a private area of PoA.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Um, no. :rolleyes:

I rolled my eyes (and am doing it again) because that -- clearly, obviously, and easy-to-understand -- "IS" not what I implied. From my, what, second or third post in this thread:



The fact that those specific traits -- which are all political in nature -- of a political leader were brought up, that makes it political. As I also mentioned -- numerous times -- of course it's possible to talk about a political figure and the conversation not be political in nature; I even used examples of a person's golf swing and choice of clothing as an example to demonstrate as much. Apparently you missed that post. :rolleyes:

This conversation, however, clearly was political (and why the MC continues to choose to not enforce its clearly-defined policy still goes without any form of explanation.)

And I'll continue to roll my eyes so long as you or anybody else continues to either not understand the very simple, very clear, and yet-to-be-refuted point I've made or continues to purposefully distort it.
Click to expand...

Wow...so we cannot even, as a people, come to some modicum of agreement on what traits we want in our leaders, be they CEO's or politicians? If we DO want to discuss the basic traits of our political leaders....say honesty, integrity, fair mindedness, that is suddenly "political"?

Holy hell...no wonder this country is in the mess it is when that is now a contested political interest.

I sincerely believe we need another revolution, because something has gone rotten at the core of our current system and I think We The People have been at the root of it.
 
smigaldi said:
I think it is because the MC is a bunch of right wing wackos who only come down whenever there is a lefty involved.

Hey, if the righties can claim the MC is a bunch of lefty sympathizers then we should be able to claim the opposite. ;) :D:D

Ok the above was a joke and I don't really believe that the MC is aligned in either way. I know that there are members of the MC that are on both sides and I think most of the time they balance out.

But this thread has met all three of the SZ criteria, it has been political, it has discussed religious views, and it has been contentious. It should have been moved a long time ago.

Why it has not been moved is a mystery. The MC does know about the thread as several of them have posted in it. But if they do not want to move it so be it. Time to let it go. But this thread will be brought up as an example of allowing politics, religion, and contentious subjects to occur outside of the SZ. IMHO the reasons that the SZ was created are now negated. Those topics should just be allowed back into the HT and we can get rid of the pretense of opting into a private area of PoA.
Click to expand...



Lighten up, Francis.
 
tdager said:
Wow...so we cannot even, as a people, come to some modicum of agreement on what traits we want in our leaders, be they CEO's or politicians?
Click to expand...

Not without it being a conversation that is inherently political in nature.

tdager said:
If we DO want to discuss the basic traits of our political leaders....say honesty, integrity, fair mindedness, that is suddenly "political"?
Click to expand...

Uh... Yeah. :dunno: That's, like, you know, the definition of a political conversation -- for example, what constitutes "fair mindedness" to you might constitute ideological extremism to somebody else.

What's not to get about this?

tdager said:
Holy hell...no wonder this country is in the mess it is when that is now a contested political interest.
Click to expand...

Always has been.

Again: I'm not sure what there is to not understand about this... It'd be like saying, "Hey, I don't think that Carlos Zambrano is a good leader or has a good temperament. Oh, but, uh, but this isn't a conversation about sports." GMAFB. :rolleyes:

tdager said:
I sincerely believe we need another revolution, because something has gone rotten at the core of our current system and I think We The People have been at the root of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some certainly have been. :rolleyes:
 
tdager said:
Wow...so we cannot even, as a people, come to some modicum of agreement on what traits we want in our leaders, be they CEO's or politicians? If we DO want to discuss the basic traits of our political leaders....say honesty, integrity, fair mindedness, that is suddenly "political"?
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Any ethical or cultural observation which may have religious root is branded "religious" -- such as my use of Jesus' comment regarding lecherous looks.

Yet a statement of "common knowledge ethic" -- Nick's statement that "there's nothing wrong with that" -- is not religious.

Sure it is -- it's statement of value and ethic that has no basis other than personal opinion, which is ultimately based on some metaphysical assumptions -- i.e, "religion."
 
smigaldi said:
But this thread has met all three of the SZ criteria, it has been political, it has discussed religious views, and it has been contentious. It should have been moved a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I agree. And the fact that it hasn't has to be the result of one of two things. Either the MC is engaging the the same kind of tortured exercises in logical contortion required to make the laughable claim (that several others keep humorously attempting as well) that a discussion of the political attributes of a political leader is somehow not political or they're simply not enforcing their own clearly-defined policy. It has to be one of the two, so either we should expect this thread to be dealt with appropriately, or we can take it to be acceptable to discuss the political traits of political figures in HT without consequence.

Like I said earlier, it's their party, and it's their prerogative to not enforce their own rules if they so choose. But I think it's worth pointing out.
 
dmccormack said:
Apparently.

Any ethical or cultural observation which may have religious root is branded "religious" -- such as my use of Jesus' comment regarding lecherous looks.

Yet a statement of "common knowledge ethic" -- Nick's statement that "there's nothing wrong with that" -- is not religious.

Sure it is -- it's statement of value and ethic that has no basis other than personal opinion, which is ultimately based on some metaphysical assumptions -- i.e, "religion."
Click to expand...

"I endorse Tony LaRussa's rule of virtually always batting the pitcher 8th. But this isn't a sports conversation."

GMAFB. :rolleyes:

Edit: Actually, make it "I endorse Tony LaRussa's rule of virtually always batting the pitcher 8th, and anybody who doesn't is committing a baseball sin. But this isn't a sports conversation." Keep the "GMAFB" though. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ReverendSlappy said:
"I endorse Tony LaRussa's rule of virtually always batting the pitcher 8th. But this isn't a sports conversation."

GMAFB. :rolleyes:

Edit: Actually, make it "I endorse Tony LaRussa's rule of virtually always batting the pitcher 8th, and anybody who doesn't is committing a baseball sin. But this isn't a sports conversation." Keep the "GMAFB" though. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So insertion of the term "sin" makes it "religious?"

So I suppose I shouldn't send these pretzels as a gift?

http://www.amazon.com/Sinfully-Decadent-Belgian-Chocolate-Pretzels/dp/B000KHN5OG
 
dmccormack said:
So insertion of the term "sin" makes it "religious?"
Click to expand...

Sigh... No. :rolleyes:

But the fact that my example is about sports makes it a sports conversation, just as the above conversation being about the political attributes of political leaders makes it a political conversation. And the fact that the practical application of religious dogma is discussed also makes it a religious conversation -- especially given the fact that many people have claimed that it's being applied where it shouldn't be.

Again: There's nothing to not get about that. :dunno: It's open and shut.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
"Sigh" is right -- you're over-reaching, and making the typical not-quite-with-it 20th Century argument that there is some sort of divide between "religion" and "rest of life."

It ain't necessarily so...
Click to expand...

Says you. And discussing your belief that there isn't such a divide is a... (wait for it... wait for it...) purely religious topic of conversation.

Edit: And if there's any "over-reaching" going on, it's in the effort to claim that discussing the political traits of political leaders isn't political, or that discussing the practical application of religious dogma somehow isn't a religious discussion. There are no logical contortions whatsoever required for my point; yours, on the other hand, are way off in the deep end, barely treading water.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
"Sigh" is right -- you're over-reaching, and making the typical not-quite-with-it 20th Century argument that there is some sort of divide between "religion" and "rest of life."

It ain't necessarily so...
Click to expand...
20th Century argument? Hmmm, I just finished reading a paper written in the early 19th century that make many arguments that religion is separate from life. We can go back to the 18th century to look at many writing, many germane to the establishment of this country, that also make that same argument. It was a central tenet to the period of time known as the Enlightenment.

But if anything your using the argument that religion is an essential part of life and is to be used as a basis of measurement and a moral authority is what takes this thread into the SZ territory. I am not going to debate your issue here as it would seem to be a wholly inappropriate discussion to have in the HT.

If you want more info on that topic a good starter might be the role of Deist philosophy in the 17th and 18th century.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
I am not going to debate your issue here as it would seem to be a wholly inappropriate discussion to have in the HT.
Click to expand...

So it would seem, given the stated policy of the MC with regard to such matters. Perhaps they've changed their policy or have made the conscious (but unpublished) decision to not enforce it. Either way, there's no doubt that the topic of the posts you replied to was at least religious in nature, and probably political too, given the implicit reference to the relationship between religion and state.
 
smigaldi said:
20th Century arguement? Hmmm, I just finished reading a paper written in the early 19th century that make many arguments that religion is separate from life. We can go back to the 18th century to look at many writing, many germane to the establishment of this country, that also make that same argument. It was a central tenet to the period of time known as the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...

You betray your lack of understanding of the philosophical debate that has long ago demolished rationalism as metaphysic.

While reason can deal "objectively" with objects, it falters beyond the observable and repeatable.

The "enlightnement" is not the unified march from darkness to reasoned light reported in 1950 era textbooks.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Uh, it's self-evident: A discussion of the application of religious dogma -- of any variety -- to wider life is a purely religious topic.
Click to expand...

"Self evident" = "Question begging"

You added "dogma" -- no one in this entire thread appealed to dogma.

And the assumption that "life" can be lived absent of any a priori assumptions that cannot be verified is laughable.
 
dmccormack said:
"Self evident" = "Question begging"

You added "dogma" -- no one in this entire thread appealed to dogma.
Click to expand...

Um, "no one"? You mentioned a very specific bit of Christian dogma: its founder's teachings about lechery.

dmccormack said:
Your opinion is not universal:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Click to expand...

dmccormack said:
My only conclusion must be this: Obviously all intelligent, educated, sophisticated people share seventh-grade views on the applicability of the words of Jesus to modern life.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should pay closer attention -- starting with what you post yourself.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Um, "no one"? You mentioned a very specific bit of Christian dogma: its founder's teachings about lechery.
Click to expand...

You're playing the sophist's game of adding words to alter meaning.

Quoting Jesus is not "dogma" -- it's revealing the thoughts of the central figure in Christian ethics.

Again, your premise -- that life can be neatly divided into buckets for "religion" and the rest for "life" -- is flawed, and has been proven such by philosophers and ethicists since Plato.
 
dmccormack said:
You're playing the sophist's game of adding words to alter meaning.
Click to expand...

To "add words" isn't necessary to determine that the subject of this post...

dmccormack said:
My only conclusion must be this: Obviously all intelligent, educated, sophisticated people share seventh-grade views on the applicability of the words of Jesus to modern life.
Click to expand...

... is "the applicability of the words of Jesus to modern life." You can try to run from it, you can try to dodge it, but it's clear as day. And it's religious in nature. Period.

dmccormack said:
Quoting Jesus is not "dogma" -- it's revealing the thoughts of the central figure in Christian ethics.
Click to expand...

Which is very precisely a topic for the SZ.

dmccormack said:
Again, your premise -- that life can be neatly divided into buckets for "religion" and the rest for "life" -- is flawed, and has been proven such by philosophers and ethicists since Plato.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the "sophist's game"... That is not my premise. My premise is that your entire line of conversation -- which is undeniably religious in nature -- belongs in the Spin Zone. Again: What is there that isn't easily understood about that?
 
dmccormack said:
Again, your premise -- that life can be neatly divided into buckets for "religion" and the rest for "life" -- is flawed, and has been proven such by philosophers and ethicists since Plato.
Click to expand...
It has been "opinioned" not "proven". It is an individual choice as to what to believe. The better informed that person is on both sides of an issue the better they may be able to support their view.

But I a glad to see that you have revised your statement that the discussion was a purely 20th century one to one that has been a central philosophical tenet for a long time. I am happy to have led you to realizing your error in your original post.
 
Back to the photo...

Since the beginning, I have reasoned that the photo was hyped as a blatant attempt to stir the base using fear mongering. After all it depicts a black man looking at the butt of a white woman. What could possibly raise the ire of the average Joe quicker? Actually, I guess that question should read "what could possibly raise the ire of the average Billy Bob and Bubba quicker?" And you know the stations these folk frequent would probably never show the rebuttal video.

I wonder how many more rebel flags flying all across the south on Sunday than there had been last Thursday. Quite a few I'm sure.

It seems quite obvious why it was played so hard by the right. Gotta galvanize the core constituency.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
"I endorse Tony LaRussa's rule of virtually always batting the pitcher 8th. But this isn't a sports conversation."
Click to expand...

Bad analogy.

This *is* a *government* conversation. I don't find it to be particularly *political*.

It ain't political 'til someone says "Obama's a lech, just like all those other ******n democrats."

Oops. ;)
 
OK, time to put this to bed.

We drifted back into a political argument. Thread done.
 
gprellwitz said:
Yeah, but Clinton's wife was from the NORTHERN Chicago Suburbs, Obama's wife is from the SOUTH SIDE of Chicago, not even the suburbs. Big difference!:yes:
Click to expand...

"The Baddest part of town..."











....is the WEST side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top