|
|
On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively].
Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow.
|
that's because you're an illiberal statist dick
|
On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow.
He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results.
|
Dammit, you two ruined it, I wanted him to say it in his words 
|
On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results.
no, he objects to this thesis
|
On November 02 2012 12:39 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:35 aksfjh wrote:On November 02 2012 12:33 farvacola wrote:
Older, more likely voters are also more likely to consider hanging up rude. Or are really appreciative of the human contact since they're lonely. That's very depressing. Now you make me want to call up random old people...
omg, old poeple LOVEEEE political phone calls. I've been stuck on a phone with an old person for nearly 30 minutes before....
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis
How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T
On November 02 2012 13:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:39 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:35 aksfjh wrote:On November 02 2012 12:33 farvacola wrote:
Older, more likely voters are also more likely to consider hanging up rude. Or are really appreciative of the human contact since they're lonely. That's very depressing. Now you make me want to call up random old people... omg, old poeple LOVEEEE political phone calls. I've been stuck on a phone with an old person for nearly 30 minutes before....
lol nice. I hate phone banking so I try to stay away from it as much as I can.
|
On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 13:05 BluePanther wrote:On November 02 2012 12:39 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:35 aksfjh wrote:On November 02 2012 12:33 farvacola wrote:
Older, more likely voters are also more likely to consider hanging up rude. Or are really appreciative of the human contact since they're lonely. That's very depressing. Now you make me want to call up random old people... omg, old poeple LOVEEEE political phone calls. I've been stuck on a phone with an old person for nearly 30 minutes before.... lol nice. I hate phone banking so I try to stay away from it as much as I can.
I loathe it. But every now and then I get worked into doing it. We needed to make a showing for the press once. They had TV cameras in the office, so I got enlisted.  Also, I'll be on the phones all weekend.
|
On November 02 2012 12:17 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:09 ZeaL. wrote:On November 02 2012 11:06 xDaunt wrote:
Christ, this election needs to end. Now I am getting like 6+ calls per day from pollsters and robo-call ads. I hang up on all of them promptly. What state are you in? I see pretty much nothing... no calls, not even too many of those signs in front of peoples houses. Even in Minnesota, we're getting presidential ads now. They're more aimed at Wisco and maybe Iowa though. But we have two extremely important ballot measures to defeat (ban gay marriage and voter ID) and the cities are rolling with activity on those. I've gotten called three times this week, twice from phone banks at my own school.
On your cell? Guess I'm lucky, haven't gotten any or seen any presidential campaign ads but I haven't watched much TV lately.
|
On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T
Grammar. That thesis is attributed to the illiberal statist dicks. Our poster finds that point of view morally disgusting, although he contends additionally that the illiberal statist dicks in question would likely not acknowledge the category of moral disgust as an objective (and therefore, by implication, legitimate) one, and would thus be unimpressed by his condemnation.
|
On November 02 2012 12:20 YDidUAbortMe wrote:
Robo-call ads....? Let me get this straight. Your phone rings and when you pick up you get a commercial in your ear? I guess I misunderstand the concept, cause I really can't believe this sorts of advertising would be beneficial for the advertiser.
Campaigns have vastly improved their effectiveness over the last four elections. If a presidential campaign or the RNC/DNC are doing something, they probably have data showing it's worthwhile.
|
On November 02 2012 13:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T Grammar. That thesis is attributed to the illiberal statist dicks. Our poster finds that point of view morally disgusting, although he contends additionally that the illiberal statist dicks in question would likely not acknowledge the category of moral disgust as an objective (and therefore, by implication, legitimate) one, and would thus be unimpressed by his condemnation. Correct. And to be clear, my rational for atheists still respecting religion socially and legally was: Humility, respect for individual rights, and [assuming you believe in it] the typical Burkean case for traditionalism.
|
On November 02 2012 13:13 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 13:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T Grammar. That thesis is attributed to the illiberal statist dicks. Our poster finds that point of view morally disgusting, although he contends additionally that the illiberal statist dicks in question would likely not acknowledge the category of moral disgust as an objective (and therefore, by implication, legitimate) one, and would thus be unimpressed by his condemnation. Correct. And to be clear, my rational for atheists still respecting religion socially and legally was: Humility, respect for individual rights, and [assuming you believe in it] the typical Burkean case for traditionalism.
Ahh yes, there you are! So which parts of what I wrote conflict with any of the things you listed, and who is the atheist you're addressing? I'm Episcopalian yo.
|
On November 02 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 13:13 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 13:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T Grammar. That thesis is attributed to the illiberal statist dicks. Our poster finds that point of view morally disgusting, although he contends additionally that the illiberal statist dicks in question would likely not acknowledge the category of moral disgust as an objective (and therefore, by implication, legitimate) one, and would thus be unimpressed by his condemnation. Correct. And to be clear, my rational for atheists still respecting religion socially and legally was: Humility, respect for individual rights, and [assuming you believe in it] the typical Burkean case for traditionalism. Ahh yes, there you are! So which parts of what I wrote conflict with any of the things you listed, and who is the atheist you're addressing? I'm Episcopalian yo. My post was addressed to oneofthem not you...sooo? Like, did you really fail not only to understand my post but the actual guy I was quoting? Its pretty clear...
|
On November 02 2012 13:17 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 13:15 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 13:13 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 13:11 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 13:06 Souma wrote:On November 02 2012 12:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 02 2012 12:55 Praetorial wrote:On November 02 2012 12:49 farvacola wrote:On November 02 2012 12:47 whatevername wrote:On November 02 2012 11:56 oneofthem wrote:
this idea of religious toleration is itself predicated upon a religious approach to religion, so to speak. it's to honor someone's 'faith', respect their 'religion'. a community of believers etc. once you describe the stuation in non-religious terms it loses all sanctity, and instead becomes a pragmatic discussion on the usefulness of respecting strong beliefs. there is after all, no extra-religious reasons to give religious beliefs particular weight outside of their functional role in the person. (a special 'religious' faculty of mind may be invoked here but at this point we are talking about stuff like respecting sacred symbols for a person, which is religious participation in itself)
should use your sanctimony on more worthwhile things, like respecting other people's wellbeing and status as a fellow participant. hugs for everyone Pretty sure respect for religion could be predicated on fucking humility, respect for the rights and conscience of an individual, respect for tradition [burkean knowledge etc]. I'm sure if your some illiberal statist dick [which it seems most people in our generation are today] it seems rather obvious that religion only should be given legal and social respect insofar as it produces objective results. But well, thats morally disgusting [something I expect that same group of people dont even believe exists objectively]. Can you rephrase this? I don't really think I follow. He means religion should be tolerates so long as it produces universally good results. no, he objects to this thesis How can you tell? I'm so confused. T_T Grammar. That thesis is attributed to the illiberal statist dicks. Our poster finds that point of view morally disgusting, although he contends additionally that the illiberal statist dicks in question would likely not acknowledge the category of moral disgust as an objective (and therefore, by implication, legitimate) one, and would thus be unimpressed by his condemnation. Correct. And to be clear, my rational for atheists still respecting religion socially and legally was: Humility, respect for individual rights, and [assuming you believe in it] the typical Burkean case for traditionalism. Ahh yes, there you are! So which parts of what I wrote conflict with any of the things you listed, and who is the atheist you're addressing? I'm Episcopalian yo. My post was addressed to oneofthem not you...sooo?
Ha! I knew I wasn't an illiberal statist dick! Take that Samz
Now, to the topic at hand.
GREEN BAY, Wis., Nov 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney went back on the attack on Thursday, breaking a storm-induced campaign truce to hit the road and pound home their closing messages in the final stretch of a tight battle for the White House.
With five days left until Tuesday's election, Obama received an endorsement from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, r e surrected his 2008 "change" slogan and said he was the only candidate who had actually fought for it.
Romney criticized Obama as a lover of big government who would expand the federal bureaucracy.
National polls show the race deadlocked, and Obama and Romney will spend the final days in eight swing states that will decide who wins the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the White House.
Source
|
|
|
I'm not usually one to jump on the "government abuse" bandwagon when it comes to denouncing political platforms, but the Republicans are making an awfully long list of non-partisans suddenly turned enemies. Anything critical of their platform isn't up for debate, but seen as a conspiracy to smear the God-given righteousness of the Republican ideology and party.
|
|
|
It's late so I read that line about Sarah Palin, McCain and George Bush as 658 thousand jokes about Sarah palin compared to the 200ish joked about McCain, I almost believed it for a moment lol. I mean it is Sarah Palin.
"But these results hardly differ from those found in the last CMPA study. In the 2008 election, John McCain, Sarah Palin and George W. Bush topped the list of comedians’ most-targeted politicians, with 658, 566 and 244 jokes, respectively. Obama ranked fourth with 243 jokes."
|
On November 02 2012 15:48 aksfjh wrote:I'm not usually one to jump on the "government abuse" bandwagon when it comes to denouncing political platforms, but the Republicans are making an awfully long list of non-partisans suddenly turned enemies. Anything critical of their platform isn't up for debate, but seen as a conspiracy to smear the God-given righteousness of the Republican ideology and party.
Do you really see this as a new development?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
