I can’t remember; was the Prohibition started by Liberals? Because that could be said to have created one of the biggest problems your country faces. It gave organised crime the foot in the door towards corrupting government officials, and led to the futile “War Against Drugs” that your LEO’s are incompetently fighting to this day.
Yes, but if “they” say that, then “they” are wrong, see?
If you have a bunch of people who profess a belief in God and in Jesus Christ, define themselves as Christians, maybe even go to church sometimes; but who also cuss up a storm, wear revealing clothing, have pre-marital sex, live together before marriage, have extra-marital sex, have multiple marriages and divorces, use drugs, etc., etc., etc., their more straitlaced fellow Christians are perfectly free to say “You guys aren’t being good Christians! God doesn’t want you to do ____, He wants you to do ____!”
But if the straitlaced Christians are saying that the slacker/free-spirited/liberal Christians are “declining towards atheism”, then the moralizing Christians ARE WRONG. And they can expect to be called upon it every fucking time.
Atheism is disbelieving in, not believing in, rejecting God–however the fuck you want to put it (that’s not the argument we’re having here). Atheists may be total jerks, amoral nihilists, basically decent regular folks, or people who devote their entire lives to helping the poor or saving orphans from burning buildings. Atheism is not a system of morality or ethics; it is a point of view about God. Nothing more and nothing less.
It’s like that idiot Ben Stein who had the gall to refer to the September 11 attacks as an example of “atheistic evil”. That wasn’t some “valid point of view”, it was simply cretinous.
Nothing he says will make a difference. Your own words, from the same post I linked to earlier:
So why even ask? So that Captain Carrot can jump through hoops and dance like a monkey for someone who openly declares that he’s not interested in facts and nothing can change his mind? That’s a mug’s game, but I’m sure Captain Carrot is well aware of that.
You are projecting what you think is my assessment of liberals as evil onto me, when it does not exist in fact.
Yeah, I know damn well what he meant; he meant to portray me in a way that is blatantly dishonest. Then when called on his lies, he claims they were mere rhetorical devices.
(Oh, hey…I just got an idea. How’s about you just regard the things I said in the post you linked to as “rhetorical devices”, and then you won’t have anything to get cranked about and all will be well, yes, no?)
Let me put it to you this way. If you said to a woman, “If I were to call anyone a bitch, it would be you, but I don’t call women bitches, because that’s a bad word,” would you be surprised if she got offended and angry? And would you feel you didn’t deserve it? Just try, for one second, standing on the other side of one of your screeds. You can make the semantic argument all you want, but your sentiments are clear. You are only denying it to claim the illusory high ground.
[/QUOTE]
A false equivalence, I’m afraid. Attributing harmful consequences to an ideology and its proponents is a far cry from calling someone an insulting name. As far as standing on the other side goes, I’m under no illusion that that the things I say are viewed…uncharitably, shall we say…by the other side. That is to be expected. Still, it doesn’t mean my point is wrong. I could go onto a conservative board and post the exact same things and be roundly congratulated for them. The key issue is whether my view of what has happened to this society as a result of liberal permissiveness is correct. People who aren’t inclined to agree (or to accept blame, as the case may be) will take offense at it. C’est la vie.
I would imagine Captain Carrot would prefer to speak for himself without your running interference and trying to get him off the hook.
And no, I’m not against facts at all, as long as they are probative. And I don’t mind providing facts, if probative facts exist. (And in case mhendo is reading, by probative I mean that “which proves” as opposed to “tends to prove”.)
But be that as it may, I didn’t ask CC for facts; I asked just to what he would attribute the problems I described in that post of mine which you are so fond of following me aroung to post again and again (and for which I do thank you, btw. I wouldn’t be allowed to post it over and over myself so I am grateful for your assistance in helping me get my message out :D), and I even stated that I would not ask for cites, that I only wanted his view.
So, thanks for playing, but…Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! 
Starving Artist, without having studied those events in much detail, and not having much desire to do so in order to present you with an argument that would almost certainly be dealt with dishonestly, I posit that the problems you list are the results of deeper issues in our society, which were brought to light by many different trends; moreover, this is a good thing, as it is much easier to fix something (if indeed it is broken) if it is open and admitted.
For example, I know that you did not list this, but increased divorce rates are not a bad thing in that a. women are less pressured to stay in bad marriages for various reasons and b. not all marriages were a good idea in the first place. Thus, something that sounds bad can have positive effects.
And what makes you think that ? Conservatism is all about ruthlessness, thoughtlessness, ignorance, bigotry, hatred; malice and the use of others as tools and toys. Fanaticism, dishonesty, greed, and really every other evil there is. Conservatism is the cesspit of human culture. Not that I blame evil and ignorance on conservatism so much as I blame conservatism on evil and ignorance; conservatism is basically evil and stupidity dressed up as a political ideology.
And no I don’t think I’m exaggerating; I’m just paying attention. Whenever there’s a moral or factual or practical debate, the conservatives have virtually always been on the wrong side. The Left is sometimes wrong, and sometimes right; the Right is nearly always wrong. Both now, and throughout all of history.
Christian values are whatever Christians say they are; they are the values Christians happen to hold, not some objectively defined bunch of values ( since Christians have never agreed on what those might be). Since the majority of this country are Christian, they haven’t “abandoned Christian values”, just changed them. In fact, they pretty much CAN’T “abandon Christian values”, since there’s nothing there except the values that shift with Christian opinion. That’s why someone saying “I believe in Christian values” tells you nothing other than they probably think of themselves as a Christian.
I don’t know who started prohibition, but I doubt very seriously that our government’s officials were not being corrupted long before its advent. 
But be that as it may, I’m having a very hard time equating prohibition that occurred in the twenties and early thirties to the so-called war on drugs. Drugs have only been a problem on a societal scale since the mid-to-late sixties when America’s hippie youth, in its eagerness to be cool and follow the lead of its guiding musical influences, took to it like manna from heaven. Then, toss in the pleasurableness of the experience, the sense of belonging to an outlaw culture and sticking it to the man, and the liberal permissiveness that promoted and encouraged its use, and you get to where we are today.
Further, I would posit that far, far, far fewer people have suffered as a result of organized crime in this country than have those who’ve experienced the criminality, misery and death that has resulted from drug use here.
That’s not the point. And no I’ve never watched the show.
Unlikely.
No I don’t see. You are arguing by assertion. I am repeating to you a standard part of the debate.
Yes they can.
It’s about the moral climate and it’s degeneration. If you throw out all godly things ultimately you throw out God too.
Yes I know, I don’t need the spiel EVERY time one of y’all gets your panties in a twist.
Sure, whatever. I want his money.
I suggest you do a little research, because you do not understand what projection is. Get back to me after you do.
He was not dishonest. He was using the word “evil” in a different way than you were. If you don’t want to come off as if you think liberals are evil (in the common parlance), you might want to change the tenor of what you say. As it stands, this is the impression you are giving people, regardless of if you actually say outright, “Liberals are evil” because of some linguistic compunction. You have no compunction about flagrantly fact-free, broad brush accusations, though.
I already don’t take a damn thing you say seriously, but I do have to take issue when you are disingenuous.
Calling someone “evil” is calling someone an insulting name, I’m afraid. It’s about the words we use and how we use them, after all, that is your point, right? But this just proves that you’re unwilling to put yourself in another’s place. That’s not surprising considering the rhetoric you normally employ. You decry in others what you yourself practice. What’s the word for that again?
Then try offering some unbiased, factual cites. You never, ever do. That’s the end of the conversation with you, as it always is. Someone asks you to prove this link you always make between liberalism and crime, liberalism and disease, etc., and you can’t do it. So, sayonara again my friend, until the next time.
As for what I’m doing this weekend: encouraging gays with AIDS to have unprotected sex. Wanna come along?
If Conservatism had its way totally, we’d all still be living with 18th century ideals. The entire ethos of conservatism is built about maintaining the status quo,and that status quo was established to keep those at the top firmly in position, and the rest of us way down below. But for the left prompting their consciences, conservatism would continue to conserve, and hold back the progress of the masses. IMHO.
Every once in a while I feel the need to point out that you are wrong. But since you have no desire, or inclination to remove your ignorance and have proudly stated the fact on numerous occasions that you have no interest in knowing more about the religion you despise, I will not waste my time arguing the point with you.
Not me, if I had my conservative druthers I’d go back to pre-Roman times and be a Druid engaging in sex magic in order to make it rain.
How many people do you reckon die from the actual drug usage as opposed to the crimes that go hand in hand with its illegality? I’d wager there were more people dying of drug gang shootings than there are overdoses and the like.
So you don’t really have an understanding of what caused the problems I listed, you just know that if I’m blaming liberals I’m wrong about 'em, is that it? :rolleyes:
Given that you’ve chose to characterize my likely response in this way, I’m sure you’ll understand when I don’t bother to answer further. I asked you the question in good faith, with a willingness to take a look at things from the other side and see how you can feel differently about these things than I do (something Rubystreak loves to exhort me to do, btw), and that is the thanks I get. So I’m sure you’ll understand if I don’t respond to your comments on divorce and regard your stance on the other issues I raised as “I got nothin”.
Until you stop implying that atheists are not good or moral people, then you’ll keep hearing it.
ETA: This may be better phrased as “cannot be” as there are certainly asshole atheists.
Really, you know?
Oh, wait, no you obviously do need the spiel:
Atheism is disbelieving in, not believing in, rejecting God–however the fuck you want to put it (that’s not the argument we’re having here). Atheists may be total jerks, amoral nihilists, basically decent regular folks, or people who devote their entire lives to helping the poor or saving orphans from burning buildings. Atheism is not a system of morality or ethics; it is a point of view about God. Nothing more and nothing less.
There’s nothing stopping you from doing that now. That’s the great thing about the degeneration of Judeo-Christian society.
Ha; there you go again with the “I will not deign to argue with you” non-argument. You do that whenever backed into a corner, I’ve noticed.