EPTPeople don't listen them to learn, they follow them and support what they stand for, which is anticlericalism.
Philosophy is another beast entirely, you can't enter that field for political purposes, or you destroy its entire utility.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3943
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
People don't listen them to learn, they follow them and support what they stand for, which is anticlericalism. Philosophy is another beast entirely, you can't enter that field for political purposes, or you destroy its entire utility. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote: Dawkins and Hitchens are no philosphers... They're high class Milo Yiannopoulous, that's it. People don't listen them to learn, they follow them and support what they stand for, which is anticlericalism. Philosophy is another beast entirely. Correct. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On June 04 2016 23:57 farvacola wrote: Fine because you insist on being served up disapproval like a 10 year old in line at the cafeteria, start with this (though you needn't stick with the Dominican translation). + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Summa_Theologica_(2nd_rev._ed.)_-_Volume_3.djvu/page7-220px-Summa_Theologica_(2nd_rev._ed.)_-_Volume_3.djvu.jpg) The point is if you're going to attack a source of knowledge, you could instead rather say where you are getting your own knowledge that shapes your own worldview. Often times the disagreements between us are really just where we get our knowledge from and what we read that we agreed with or disagreed with that shaped us as people. Right now almost all media outlets are heavily biased and creating false narratives for instance. A Breitbart reader and a Salon reader will never see eye to eye. So when you attack Breitbart, I could likewise attack Salon. Both of which put out some really stupid shit at times. Proof being right here. http://archive.is/ZoYYs | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10922 Posts
| ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote: Dawkins and Hitchens are no philosphers... They're high class Milo Yiannopoulous, that's it. People don't listen them to learn, they follow them and support what they stand for, which is anticlericalism. Philosophy is another beast entirely, you can't enter that field for political purposes, or you destroy its entire utility. It's like when people say "this isnt art, but this is". Rather than arguing that Transformers isnt art at all, I'd prefer to say, it is art, but it fucking sucks as art  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46213 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:35 WhiteDog wrote: Dawkins and Hitchens are no philosphers... They're high class Milo Yiannopoulous Comparing someone to Milo- even as a better version of him- is one of the worst insults you can give a man. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6307 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:46 SK.Testie wrote: Since the convo has moved on spoilered: + Show Spoiler + On June 04 2016 23:57 farvacola wrote: Fine because you insist on being served up disapproval like a 10 year old in line at the cafeteria, start with this (though you needn't stick with the Dominican translation). + Show Spoiler + The point is if you're going to attack a source of knowledge, you could instead rather say where you are getting your own knowledge that shapes your own worldview. Often times the disagreements between us are really just where we get our knowledge from and what we read that we agreed with or disagreed with that shaped us as people. Right now almost all media outlets are heavily biased and creating false narratives for instance. A Breitbart reader and a Salon reader will never see eye to eye. So when you attack Breitbart, I could likewise attack Salon. Both of which put out some really stupid shit at times. Proof being right here. http://archive.is/ZoYYs Are you satisfied with Thomas Aquinas or were you implicitly looking for modern writers like the ones that were being talked about? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton moved Friday to muzzle a former state regulator who says he was ordered in 2010 to drop a fraud investigation into Trump University for political reasons. Paxton's office issued a cease and desist letter to former Deputy Chief of Consumer Protection John Owens after he made public copies of a 14-page internal summary of the state's case against Donald Trump for scamming millions from students of his now-defunct real estate seminar. Owens, now retired, said his team had built a solid case against the now-presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but was told to drop it after Trump's company agreed to cease operations in Texas. The former state regulator told The Associated Press on Friday that decision was highly unusual and left the bilked students on their own to attempt to recover their tuition money from the celebrity businessman. According to the documents provided by Owens, his team sought to sue Trump, his company and several business associates to help recover more than $2.6 million students spent on seminars and materials, plus another $2.8 million in penalties and fees. Owens said he was so surprised at the order to stand down he made a copy of the case file and took it home. "It had to be political in my mind because Donald Trump was treated differently than any other similarly situated scam artist in the 16 years I was at the consumer protection office," said Owens, who lives in Houston. Owens' boss at the time was then-Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is now the state's GOP governor. Source | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:33 Mohdoo wrote: Hilary Clinton: California's governor. Los Angeles' mayor. The LA Times Bernie Sanders: Danny DeVito. Calm down with the Hillary coolaid. There was a zero percent chance any of those people/entities would endorse Sanders. Brown is an old and frial long time democrat. Garcetti is so squishy and image obsessed he wouldn't dare go against Hillary, never mind all the Hispanics in LA he'd be potentially alienating. The La times is a combo of all of the above reasons. Democrat loyalty, squishes, image obsessed, and concerned with the locals (even if none of them read it). I would be scared. The fact that Sanders has closed the gap honestly surprises me. There are a crap ton of college students here, but still... It's not like all of them can vote here. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On June 05 2016 01:12 Surth wrote: It's like when people say "this isnt art, but this is". Rather than arguing that Transformers isnt art at all, I'd prefer to say, it is art, but it fucking sucks as art This has nothing to do with it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 05 2016 02:42 Introvert wrote: Calm down with the Hillary coolaid. There was a zero percent chance any of those people/entities would endorse Sanders. Brown is an old and frial long time democrat. Garcetti is so squishy and image obsessed he wouldn't dare go against Hillary, never mind all the Hispanics in LA he'd be potentially alienating. The La times is a combo of all of the above reasons. Democrat loyalty, squishes, image obsessed, and concerned with the locals (even if none of them read it). I would be scared. The fact that Sanders has closed the gap honestly surprises me. There are a crap ton of college students here, but still... It's not like all of them can vote here. I do find it remarkable that Bernie is still winning states despite the fact that he is mathematically unfeasible at this point. When it was clear that Trump won he started to win bigger because the presumptive winner gets that boost. It is a testament to Hillary's weakness as a candidate that her victory margin is so small despite the fact that she basically has every conventional advantage one would want, and that Bernie isn't even a strong candidate (I can see a lot of people saying, "he has good ideas but he's not the right person to implement them" and they wouldn't be wrong). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 05 2016 02:54 Kiarip wrote: I said a large portion of the idiotic part.... so I didn't even say most of it was stupid. Strong liberal tactic by trying to poison well and shame me as a homophobe. Too bad I don't care, maybe you should call my employer too. It's not a liberal tactic to call out your inaccurate, sweeping language. The "I don't care" line also speaks volumes. So please, post more about how little you care and how unashamed you are of your homophobia | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2016 03:07 LegalLord wrote: I do find it remarkable that Bernie is still winning states despite the fact that he is mathematically unfeasible at this point. When it was clear that Trump won he started to win bigger because the presumptive winner gets that boost. It is a testament to Hillary's weakness as a candidate that her victory margin is so small despite the fact that she basically has every conventional advantage one would want, and that Bernie isn't even a strong candidate (I can see a lot of people saying, "he has good ideas but he's not the right person to implement them" and they wouldn't be wrong). I disagree with your interpretation; (i might be wrong of course) my impression is that: trump's opponents started trying some extra sketchy tactics, and were punished for it, and some of those states were simply places trump was expected to do well, and many repubs dropped out of the race as they became nonviable, whereas bernie is staying in and still trying hard. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 05 2016 02:42 Introvert wrote: Calm down with the Hillary coolaid. There was a zero percent chance any of those people/entities would endorse Sanders. Brown is an old and frial long time democrat. Garcetti is so squishy and image obsessed he wouldn't dare go against Hillary, never mind all the Hispanics in LA he'd be potentially alienating. The La times is a combo of all of the above reasons. Democrat loyalty, squishes, image obsessed, and concerned with the locals (even if none of them read it). I would be scared. I would only be scared if Clinton was poised to walk away with less than 30% of Tuesday's delegates. She could lose CA by 10% and it won't matter relative to the outcome of the general election. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 04 2016 23:57 farvacola wrote: Fine because you insist on being served up disapproval like a 10 year old in line at the cafeteria, start with this (though you needn't stick with the Dominican translation). + Show Spoiler + Oh no, not the Aquinas. Anything but the Aquinas. Might as well recommend Chesterton if you want that kind of hyperrational theology, because at least he's got some insight into faith steeped in capitalist modernity. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 05 2016 00:46 SK.Testie wrote: Since the convo has moved on spoilered: + Show Spoiler + On June 04 2016 23:57 farvacola wrote: Fine because you insist on being served up disapproval like a 10 year old in line at the cafeteria, start with this (though you needn't stick with the Dominican translation). + Show Spoiler + The point is if you're going to attack a source of knowledge, you could instead rather say where you are getting your own knowledge that shapes your own worldview. Often times the disagreements between us are really just where we get our knowledge from and what we read that we agreed with or disagreed with that shaped us as people. Right now almost all media outlets are heavily biased and creating false narratives for instance. A Breitbart reader and a Salon reader will never see eye to eye. So when you attack Breitbart, I could likewise attack Salon. Both of which put out some really stupid shit at times. Proof being right here. http://archive.is/ZoYYs You are the one reading a book that argues South Africa was better under apartheid so . . . | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 05 2016 03:39 IgnE wrote: Oh no, not the Aquinas. Anything but the Aquinas. Might as well recommend Chesterton if you want that kind of hyperrational theology, because at least he's got some insight into faith steeped in capitalist modernity. I actually had something of a crisis as I chose which work to recommend, though I ended up eventually giving in in to my soft spot for Catholics. The point, that a proper and meaningful critique of religion ought be very familiar with foundational works of religious thinking (and, ideally, couched in their jargon), still stands  | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
fair enough. far be it from me to defend dawkins and hitchens as philosphers | ||
| ||
