Search results for query: *

Ah yes, because the inner party and the outer party really constitutes a real debate. So you put a lot more faith in democracy than myself. So you think public spaces should be atheistic - I'm sorry "secular." I said terms like antisemitism are meaningless. So you either can't read or you...

I disagree. I think that even two-party states require this, even if to a lesser degree than totalitarian societies. There has never been nor will there ever be an open society of the liberal sort. I never said that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed their spaces. I simply expressed skepticism...

Your views of pluralism also demand violence against beliefs that disagree with yours too. That's the nature of politics: one point of view is forced upon the rest. The only way you can get around this is if you are some kind of pacifist-anarchist. By necessity, by prohibiting Christian...

No, I’m not really sure you understood what I said any more than Shieldmaiden understood what you said about lesbianization. From my perspective, you are basically calling me all kinds of names without any provocation, which makes me think you were emotionally distraught by what I said. I just...

Does it work in the opposite direction? Like, if we reduce the amount of lesbians, we’ll have less democracy?

Listen to yourself. You are basically castigating me for not making “specific accommodations” for a bunch of different religious groups when my own views were never part of this. You assumed I was an evil bigot worthy of contempt based on the fact that I wanted prayer in schools! And no, I’m not...

So, you are just being a bigot then. You don’t have an argument, you just have assumptions about what my position is and moral outrage. Just stop while you are ahead, for both of our sakes. I don’t think I can handle people like you.

So, you have nothing but namecalling? Antisemitic is pretty weak sauce, as far as accusations though, as I haven't even talked about my views of Jewish people. What definition of antisemitism are you using, the ADL's? Calling reactionaries cowards is a lot more interesting though. Is it...

Ah, that explains it. I have the exact opposite disposition to you : I personally am rather tolerant, but I think that a certain level of intolerance is necessary, if not ideal. I'm comfortable being around people with different religious traditions and beliefs, but I don't think that's good for...

Well, I’m against America as it currently stands today, yes. So is any reactionary, really. But I’m glad to hear that you’d basically do what Emperor Diocletian did while claiming to be tolerant. And you wonder why we’re so intolerant? Maybe it’s because of a lack of reciprocity, a lack that you...

The problem of pluralism isn’t just a problem for conservatives, but a problem for everyone. Liberals claim to have a system like what you suggest, a belief system that encompasses all society, one that crosses cultures and metaphysical beliefs. In fact, it excludes all ideas that are...

Yes, because all male bonding is homoeroticism because reasons, and excluding women from anything is “misogyny.” No, we need more exclusion, and we need more public prayer. Secular atheism is a serious spiritual threat, and every time organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation or...

Why? Is it because we think homosexuality is a sin?

The point of Pascal's Wager is that, in any case, atheism is foolish by any measure. If atheism is true and you aren't right, then nothing happens. Understand, Pascal was dealing with atheists who didn't believe in metaphysics and were skeptical of just about everything, but loved gambling. He...

No. The only benefit to Pascal's Wager is to show that, even from the standpoint of purely non-metaphysical self-interest, atheism is irrational. Considering it does not make an appeal to metaphysics, I don't consider Pascal's Wager to be a real argument for God's existence.

I don't really consider you an expert on what's a good idea consider you want to worship a fictional deity.

That's not my position. My position is that looking at scantily clad women is wrong because it encourages effeminacy in men. Men need to be virtuous and either form stable, loving families or be celibate. A bit old fashioned? Yes. Necessary? Definitely. Sexual activity must be confined within...

Why? Why make new religions when you know they're fake? Do you like believing in lies? Also, you haven't answered my question. What do you think my position is on moral degeneracy?