(Untitled)

[jordan179]

There is an undercurrent in our nation right now that we should do something to prevent people from "provoking" the Muslims by engaging in behavior or speech that is critical or disrespectfal of Islam.  The argument is "It's rude anyway, I certainly wouldn't want to make a movie like The Innocence of Muslims or burn a Koran, so why should we face

Comments

[metaphorsbwithu]

This is not simply about freedom of speech in America.

This march toward supposed utopianism is ideological and global

[marycatelli]

"Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

[metaphorsbwithu]

So, are you a fascist or a constitutionalist?

[melvin_udall]

You misunderstood. That was in support of your argument.

[metaphorsbwithu]

I didn't misunderstand. Nor did I make an assumption.

I simply asked for a clarification.

It's logical to question someone who quotes Mussolini, the father of fascism, with no accompanying commentary, and ask to explain the context, as well as where he/she is coming from.

But thanks.

[melvin_udall]

You got me there.

[headnoises]

It's logical to question someone who quotes Mussolini, the father of fascism, with no accompanying commentary, and ask to explain the context, as well as where he/she is coming from.

It was pretty clearly a rephrasing of what you took several paragraphs to say, in the form of a famous quote.

The lack of commentary also let it stand starkly in all its horrific "glory."

[jordan179]

It is also gutless in that the enemy of their enemy is their friend and stupid because they don't realize they after their "enemies" are subjugated, silenced or eliminated that THEY are next.

In the case of often-Leftist groups whom the Muslims especially hate, such as GLBT, Jews and Atheists, they are immediately next, as in being subjected to physical attack as soon as the Muslims get recognized enclaves.

[melvin_udall]

Well said.

The Marxist elite believe they'll eventually beat the silly backwards religious people, but for now they're a useful tool.

their basic tenet must be suspended

Yes and no. Their only true basic tenet is the quest for power. The leftist religion happily contradicts itself whenever anything it previously used becomes counterproductive to an increase in power.

[metaphorsbwithu]

RE: Yes and no. Their only true basic tenet is the quest for power. The leftist religion happily contradicts itself whenever anything it previously used becomes counterproductive to an increase in power.

By "basic tenet" I refer to liberalism in it's purest form which in classical theory claims to be tolerant and in support of individual freedom and especially free speech.

What you are referring to is the goal, not a tenet, of the corrupted liberal ideology which has been hijacked by the radical left.

They now only give "lip service" to freedoms, deny there are such things as "inalienable rights" (except to the right to health care, abortions, condoms, etc.) and are consumed with the lust for power in order to control the masses and determine how other people live.

[marycatelli]

What some people who called themselves liberals once practiced is entirely moot when discussing what a different set of people who call themselves liberal practice nowadays.

[metaphorsbwithu]

FYI: Do you know what "moot" means?

It means debatable. Questionable. Disputable.

I think you mean irrelevant, as do so many people who use the word "moot" incorrectly.

But it's not irrelevant because liberals mostly "claim" to be what classical liberalism was about, and it's appropriate to demonstrate that they are not, and have indeed, as you have said, moved away from liberal principles in favor of an authoritarian, radical, left wing, statist ideology.

[marycatelli]

because it also means irrelevant. That you don't like it is -- moot.

[headnoises]

moot1    [moot] Show IPA
adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moot

What "liberalism in its purest form" might be based on classic theory, when by Liberal we're talking about today's liberals and what they actually do, is academic space-filler.

[gothelittle]

What it actually means is a meeting among members of an archaic Anglo-Saxon community in order to decide matters of justice.

But if we are going to deal with its present usage instead of its historical definition, "theoretical" and "deprived of significance" is pretty much it.

Merriam-Webster usage of the word "moot" as an adjective:

* The court ruled that the issue is now moot because the people involved in the dispute have died.

* I think they were wrong, but the point is moot. Their decision has been made and it can't be changed now.

I've got another word to define:

Pedant.

[melvin_udall]

By "basic tenet" I refer to liberalism in it's purest form which in classical theory claims to be tolerant and in support of individual freedom and especially free speech.

Which has nothing to do with the Liberalism of which we speak here. "Progressives", another Orwellian label, stole and corrupted the word, as is common.

I know what a classical liberal is. These people have nothing to do with it. Same wolf, new fur.

What you are referring to is the goal, not a tenet

Oh good, pedantry. Leftism, whatever the label they use at the time, always believes that the masses must be ruled by a small elite. Intellectual leftists know this. Most of the sheep advocate that goal but may not realize it's a basic tenet.

Now we could go off into a long conversation about how the left/right framework itself is actually inadequate to properly discuss the overall issue but my balls itch.

They now only give "lip service" to freedoms, deny there are such things as "inalienable rights" (except to the right to health care, abortions, condoms, etc