Ahh, yes... Another fruitful political discussion here at AF. Thanks, Neo. How well did you think, "a few, therefore all of you," as an OP was going to go? Would you consider sparking a feud with a broad brush to be intellectually honest on your part? Are you even interested in actual discussion, or just name calling? For someone who has so much to say on the subject of god and ontology, it seems your sole interest when it comes to politics is in dropping inflammatory OP's, and then jumping in only when you see an opportunity to insult someone.

I don't ever see much in the way of participation on your end when it comes to the political threads you start, Neo. In fact, if you posted more of them and more frequently, I would consider it spamming/trolling. If I were to read two posts by you with your user name hidden; one about the existence of god, and the other about contemporary politics, I would assume they were authored by different forum members. Why is that?

(October 25, 2017 at 12:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Ahh, yes...  Another fruitful political discussion here at AF.  Thanks, Neo.  How well did you think, "a few, therefore all of you," as an OP was going to go?  Would you consider sparking a feud by intentional broad brushing to be intellectually honest on your part?  Are you even interested in actual discussion, or just name calling?  For someone who has so much to say on the subject of god and ontology, it seems your sole interest when it comes to politics, is in dropping inflammatory OP's, and then jumping in only when you see an opportunity to insult someone.  

I don't ever see much in the way of participation on your end when it comes to the political threads you start, Neo.  In fact, if you posted more of them and more frequently, I would consider it spamming/trolling.  If I were to read two posts by you with your user name hidden; one about the existence of god, and the other about contemporary politics, I would assume they were authored by different forum members.  Why is that?

Clearly, you are not up to speed on the cutting edge of Medieval thought. If you were, you'd be familiar with that closely reasoned masterpiece of casuistry: Aquinas's 12-point rules for trolling the liberal faithless as outlined in Summa Contra SJWs.

(October 25, 2017 at 11:49 am)shadow Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm)A Theist Wrote: The  left is still in denial and they've been throwing a massive tantrum ever since Trump was elected president. Their identity politics campaigning cost them the White House. Hopefully the dysfunctional politics and infighting of the Republicans won't cost them seats in the House and Senate in the mid terms, not that the Dems are faring any better in that regard.

What do you mean by the 'left' exactly? Do you mean everyone who voted democrat, or everyone who dislikes Trump, or a few SJW college students? I think you should figure out which group you're discussing before generalizing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of this thread seems to act as though 3 random students can represent all people with left leaning views. On what assumption is this based? To me this suggests you don't really understand the actual ideologies that most left leaning people are endorsing, or the complexity of their views.

I think 'the left' is generally thought of as the 15-20% (guessing) of the population that's predominantly white democrats.  I don't think they are representative of the entire left half of the spectrum, but they certainly drive the narrative.

My characterization is the 20% of the population who think they are 50% and act like they are 80%.

(October 24, 2017 at 12:51 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Yeah, I think I read that it was just three students. Nevertheless they seemed to believe they had license to do so. Why do you think these people feel emboldened to be such asshats?

HERE

And they wonder how Trump got elected...keep it up, Lefties. Please. You'll be doing the country a favor.

I don't understand America.
people who want progress, social justice and are intellectuals are the enemy.

So what is in vogue is stupid people, regression and oppression.

That cant be right surely?

It's The Right.

(October 25, 2017 at 1:31 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I don't understand America.
people who want progress, social justice and are intellectuals are the enemy.

So what is in vogue is stupid people, regression and oppression.

That cant be right surely?

As noted above, the Right doesn't want change, they want retrograde movement back to the point they're comfortable with, somewhere about 1960, before Kennedy was elected President. Too many people becoming too equal for them to be at all happy with the current situation.

(October 25, 2017 at 1:31 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I don't understand America.
people who want progress, social justice and are intellectuals are the enemy.

So what is in vogue is stupid people, regression and oppression.

That cant be right surely?

They aren't intellectuals, which is why their strategies for pursuing progress and social justice aren't particularly popular or effective.

(October 24, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: That's kind of my point.

How do you feel about the khmer rouge progress?

My point is that all social progress/reform is mostly, but not necessarily, good.

That's kind of my point.

(October 25, 2017 at 1:46 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(October 24, 2017 at 8:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: That's kind of my point.

How do you feel about the khmer rouge progress?

My point is that all social progress/reform is mostly, but not necessarily, good.

Your last sentence suffers from terminal backpedaling.