European Who Loves America

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

A Catholic may believe that the cosmos came into being thirteen point eight billion years ago, and that life evolved on this planet over the last 700 million years, but asserting that God was the one who set it all in motion does not make him a “creationist”, any more than wearing Evolv rock climbing shoes makes you an “evolutionist”.[/quote]

You’re wrong. If one believes in creation one is a creationist. Just not the kind that you typically go all OCD over.

Don’t overthink this.[/quote]

By that logic, if you believe that bacteria evolve in response to to antibiotics, you are an evolutionist.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

A Catholic may believe that the cosmos came into being thirteen point eight billion years ago, and that life evolved on this planet over the last 700 million years, but asserting that God was the one who set it all in motion does not make him a “creationist”, any more than wearing Evolv rock climbing shoes makes you an “evolutionist”.[/quote]

You’re wrong. If one believes in creation one is a creationist. Just not the kind that you typically go all OCD over.

Don’t overthink this.[/quote]

By that logic, if you believe that bacteria evolve in response to to antibiotics, you are an evolutionist.
[/quote]

Catholics most certainly believe that “in the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth.”

That’s all we’re really talking about here. But you’re right, some of them believe God used macro evolution as the mechanism to go from A to Z. But this isn’t about mechanisms and macros and micros and Catholics and bacteria.

It’s about natural rights which by their very definition – indeed, even Thomas Jefferson’s (the deist and Christianity basher, remember?) definition – exist by virtue of a Creator. The *squirrelly rascal said, “Certain unalienable rights” are “endowed” to men “by their Creator.”

*Yes, he’s our squirrelly rascal and he vexes us so but nonetheless it is universally recognized that natural (unalienable or inalienable) rights are a direct gift by man’s creator to man. A creator clearly implies a creation and in very general terms, creationism (even though I conceded the term is typically used more specifically as you have mentioned). However, since you love to parse and you love to play Semantics Jeopardy on this forum I daresay you should hesitate to find offense in me doing precisely what you do here on a daily basis and what is surely monogrammed on your adorable lil boxer briefs that you love to peel off for comely and willing Thai girls (I’d peel mine off for comely and willing Thai girls too if I wore 'em, don’t get me wrong).[/quote]

Hey, I’m not anti-Semantic. Some of my best friends are words.

Also, my briefs are not monogrammed, and the comely Thai girls typically willingly peel them off themselves.

No offense found nor taken, my friend, as you must know. However, as I recall, this particular exchange was not, in fact, about natural rights. That’s over on the other DBCooper vs Magick thread. This conversation is more about whether a creationist lawmaker would be a more stalwart ally in protecting liberty than a …whatever the opposite of a creationist is called.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Indeed, even Thomas Jefferson’s (the deist and Christianity basher, remember?) definition – exist by virtue of a Creator. The *squirrelly rascal said, “Certain unalienable rights” are “endowed” to men “by their Creator.”

*Yes, he’s our squirrelly rascal and he vexes us so but nonetheless it is universally recognized that natural (unalienable or inalienable) rights are a direct gift by man’s creator to man. A creator clearly implies a creation and in very general terms, creationism (even though I conceded the term is typically used more specifically as you have mentioned.[/quote]

Having thought about it, I guess I should concede that I am a creationist too.

I believe that the heavens and the earth were created by a cataclysmic explosion of all matter 13.8 billion years ago, and that our species was created gradually by natural selection over the past 700 million years.

Glad we got that straightened out. Nice to be on the same side of the issue at last. :stuck_out_tongue:

It’s tantalizing to consider that Thomas Jefferson, Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin were all alive at the same time (Darwin and Lincoln having been born on the same day, during the Jefferson administration, and Mendel having been born just four years before Jefferson died).

Jefferson died when Charles Darwin was seventeen years old: five years before Darwin took his fateful voyage on the Beagle; thirty-three years before he published On the Origin of Species; and forty-five years before he published The Descent of Man.

Gregor Mendel, of course, did his experiments to develop his theories of genetics with pea plants, which Thomas Jefferson was fanatical about, as can easily be seen from his journals at Monticello. Jefferson was an avid amateur scientist and plant breeder, and I cannot help but think that the theories of both Darwin and Mendel (which combined form the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection, which people persistently and erroneously refer to as “Darwinism”) would have been devoured by Jefferson with great enthusiasm.

Thomas Jefferson was, of course, tremendously intelligent, extremely inquisitive, and open minded (…or as you would put it, “squirrelly”) enough to embrace new ideas if reason told him they were good ones, while discarding old ideas when reason told him they no longer fit.

I am quite confident that had he only lived long enough to read Darwin and Mendel, he would have wholeheartedly accepted the theories of evolution and genetics, with all their implications, and would have likely considered re-thinking those phrases in the Declaration about all men being “created” equal, and by whom (or by what, rather… the deist god is hardly a “who”) their certain unalienable rights might have been endowed.

Alas, we’ll never know.

OP should swap passports with that Zeppelin guy or one of the other self hating Americans here.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
OP should swap passports with that Zeppelin guy or one of the other self hating Americans here.[/quote]

If only it were that simple.

I don’t hate America, and I most definitely don’t hate myself, but I would kill for a British passport.

Right to live and work in any EU or Commonwealth country, visa-free? No need to report worldwide income as long as I don’t reside in the UK (unlike the U.S., where you have to report and pay tax on income wherever you are in the world: fuck you, IRS)?

Yeah, sign me the fuck up.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If only it were that simple.

I don’t hate America, and I most definitely don’t hate myself, but I would kill for a British passport.

[/quote]

For real? I’ve got one and I’d just as soon use it as toilet paper.

Maybe we can work something out here. You’ve got a U.S. passport and I’ve got a British passport. Criss cross.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If only it were that simple.

I don’t hate America, and I most definitely don’t hate myself, but I would kill for a British passport.

[/quote]

For real? I’ve got one and I’d just as soon use it as toilet paper.

Maybe we can work something out here. You’ve got a U.S. passport and I’ve got a British passport. Criss cross.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think you’d be happier with the trade than Yamato would be. I predict that after three months in the States he would be pining for Blighty, where yeah, the weather is dismal and soft totalitarianism is on the rise, but at least people get his jokes.

This thread has convinced me that what Yamato loves is the idea of America, not the country itself. Kind of like the man who falls in love with the girl in a pinup poster from a previous century, not realizing that she looks nothing like that in real life today.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Do you think a black man will soon be Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or head of the military of ANY Western European country?

[/quote]

Thanks for making my point.

We’ve had a black president, 2 black secretaries of state (one a woman!) and a black chairman of the joint chiefs.

But we’re the ones who are racist?[/quote]

Out of curiosity, how would you rate the performance records of the aforementioned THREE people in their respective official capacities?
[/quote]

Oh man, I don’t know.

I feel too far removed, both geographically and chronologically, to offer any sort of meaningful opinion on that.

Plus, I’m on the Shinkansen heading for the Kyoto Enbu Taikai; don’t bring me down!

But I’m sure you have, as always, an interesting point. What is it?
[/quote]

That you should consider Seppuku immediately.
[/quote]
So, are you joking, or are you a dickhead?

I’ll just hope it’s the former.
[/quote]

Quite clearly a joke sir.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Do you think a black man will soon be Prime Minister, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or head of the military of ANY Western European country?

[/quote]

Thanks for making my point.

We’ve had a black president, 2 black secretaries of state (one a woman!) and a black chairman of the joint chiefs.

But we’re the ones who are racist?[/quote]

Out of curiosity, how would you rate the performance records of the aforementioned THREE people in their respective official capacities?
[/quote]

Oh man, I don’t know.

I feel too far removed, both geographically and chronologically, to offer any sort of meaningful opinion on that.

Plus, I’m on the Shinkansen heading for the Kyoto Enbu Taikai; don’t bring me down!

But I’m sure you have, as always, an interesting point. What is it?
[/quote]

That you should consider Seppuku immediately.
[/quote]
So, are you joking, or are you a dickhead?

I’ll just hope it’s the former.
[/quote]

Quite clearly a joke sir.[/quote]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

See post above, and my post in your Chomsky-Harris thread.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

If only it were that simple.

I don’t hate America, and I most definitely don’t hate myself, but I would kill for a British passport.

[/quote]

For real? I’ve got one and I’d just as soon use it as toilet paper.

Maybe we can work something out here. You’ve got a U.S. passport and I’ve got a British passport. Criss cross.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think you’d be happier with the trade than Yamato would be. I predict that after three months in the States he would be pining for Blighty, where yeah, the weather is dismal and soft totalitarianism is on the rise, but at least people get his jokes.

This thread has convinced me that what Yamato loves is the idea of America, not the country itself. Kind of like the man who falls in love with the girl in a pinup poster from a previous century, not realizing that she looks nothing like that in real life today.[/quote]

Haha the “at least they get his jokes” line made me laugh, reminds me of John Clease saying how british humour is just inventing witty ways to be mean to one another.

I think my playing devils advocate on some issues and having undecided views on certain things might make me seem less suitable to living in the U.S than I would be in reality. For example I think universal healthcare is great but i also think the constitutional republic without state interference in healthcare can also be a good working system.
I guess I am just less certain of things than some of the posters in this thread but at the end of the day I am in my early twenties and anyone who thinks they have it all figured out at 22 is probably a fucking idiot.

My political and cultural leanings are very closer in line with the U.S but for some reasons (probably ingrained from being born in British society) the aforementioned ideals can conflict with my morals. For example even though forced taxation to fund universal healthcare is a breach of freedom and liberty part of me deep down wonders is that worse than letting a single mum die because she didn’t have the money to afford healthcare.
Some other things like racial stances, womens reproductive rights are also things I have less definite stances on than many of the American posters in this thread. I guess you could say I am developing a right wing stance on economics and politics but my social leaning is left/progressive.

Also Betty Brosmer wouldn’t let me down in real life.