George Carlin on Religion

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
But social security systems are allready collapsing.

[/quote]

And yet, not even the tea pariers want their SS taken away. 20-30 years from now, it’ll be their UHC they don’t want touched. So, we’ll index it to follow life expectancy, and enact other reforms to make participation more realistic considering demographics. And, eventually we’ll add a VAT tax or some other new revenue mechanism(s) to pay for our goodies. Talk of tax cuts is going to go the way of the dinosaur.

Getting rid of SS and Medicare for folks without a loyal spouse, 3-4 children and twice as many grandchildren, 'aint happening. Those large intact families aren’t like they used to be. Yay, social liberalism![/quote]

So you’re going to deny Medicare to someone just because they left a spouse who was abusive, an alcoholic, or both?[/quote]

You’re misunderstanding. When you don’t have a society that honors intact marriages and family, you don’t have any recourse but a big welfare state.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That’s funny and some people think big mouth atheists should go. See why freedom is important? You have the right to sit around all day, be bitter, and pretend that there is no God. And I have the right to worship God. It’s America, and if guys like you were in charge that would be a very bad thing.[/quote]

I never said you shouldn’t have the right to believe in superstitions.

Believe them all you want just keep them away from me and my loved ones.

On the other hand me being an atheist – and a libertarian – doesn’t affect you one bit.

So what I am saying is I agree with you, sort of.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That’s funny and some people think big mouth atheists should go. See why freedom is important? You have the right to sit around all day, be bitter, and pretend that there is no God. And I have the right to worship God. It’s America, and if guys like you were in charge that would be a very bad thing.

I never said you shouldn’t have the right to believe in superstitions.[/quote]

And I never said you didn’t have the right to pretend that there is no God.

Good, maybe you’re coming around.

If I may be so presumptuous as to steer this thread temporarily back to Carlin. Regardless of the fact that he was utterly opposed to and misrepresented everything I am, only a liar would deny that the man was funny. He may not have been funny in ways I approve of, but he was funny.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If I may be so presumptuous as to steer this thread temporarily back to Carlin. Regardless of the fact that he was utterly opposed to and misrepresented everything I am, only a liar would deny that the man was funny. He may not have been funny in ways I approve of, but he was funny.[/quote]

Thank you trib, I was not trying to start a religious debate here. I just created it in PWI because we all know this thread would have came here in time.

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If I may be so presumptuous as to steer this thread temporarily back to Carlin. Regardless of the fact that he was utterly opposed to and misrepresented everything I am, only a liar would deny that the man was funny. He may not have been funny in ways I approve of, but he was funny.[/quote]

Thank you trib, I was not trying to start a religious debate here. I just created it in PWI because we all know this thread would have came here in time.[/quote]

You somehow managed to spark a debate about libertarianism vs conservatism on a thread originally about George Carlin. Your avatar must really irritate the conservatives here.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
What exactly do the conservatives have against libertarians? We both support a free market system, so we agree on that. Is it the social issues? As a libertarian, I believe that the government should stay out of matters such as marriage and reproduction. For me, the issue is not whether abortion or gay marriage are right or wrong (and for the record, I do think abortion is wrong except in certain cases), but rather, do we want Big Brother sticking his nose in the bedroom and the uterus. For me, the answer is a definitive “no.”[/quote]

If you read Sloth’s description, you would understand Conservatives do not, in fact, support a free market system. Indeed, it seems they support lamenting the loss of large families and religion, and using the state to enforce progressive social safety nets. Who knew?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
But social security systems are allready collapsing.

[/quote]

And yet, not even the tea pariers want their SS taken away. 20-30 years from now, it’ll be their UHC they don’t want touched. So, we’ll index it to follow life expectancy, and enact other reforms to make participation more realistic considering demographics. And, eventually we’ll add a VAT tax or some other new revenue mechanism(s) to pay for our goodies. Talk of tax cuts is going to go the way of the dinosaur.

Getting rid of SS and Medicare for folks without a loyal spouse, 3-4 children and twice as many grandchildren, 'aint happening. Those large intact families aren’t like they used to be. Yay, social liberalism![/quote]

So you’re going to deny Medicare to someone just because they left a spouse who was abusive, an alcoholic, or both?[/quote]

You’re misunderstanding. When you don’t have a society that honors intact marriages and family, you don’t have any recourse but a big welfare state.[/quote]Absolutely correct and when you do have one you don’t need medicare. At least not even close to the scale we have devolved into.

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
What exactly do the conservatives have against libertarians? We both support a free market system, so we agree on that. Is it the social issues? As a libertarian, I believe that the government should stay out of matters such as marriage and reproduction. For me, the issue is not whether abortion or gay marriage are right or wrong (and for the record, I do think abortion is wrong except in certain cases), but rather, do we want Big Brother sticking his nose in the bedroom and the uterus. For me, the answer is a definitive “no.”[/quote]

If you read Sloth’s description, you would understand Conservatives do not, in fact, support a free market system. Indeed, it seems they support lamenting the loss of large families and religion, and using the state to enforce progressive social safety nets. Who knew?[/quote]I don’t understand what’s so hard to grasp about this. He is not saying that at all. What he is and has been saying forever, as have I, is that when you do not have a citizenry that voluntarily bridles it’s passions in what amounts to a socially conservative (read Judeo-Cristian) manner the natural, indeed the inevitable savior as the families disintegrate because everybody’s busy getting laid is the state. For the 500th time. My home town of Detroit is a ready made 157 square mile object lesson in this very thing. Almost half the population is under 40 and practically the whole population is on public assistance because they crank out kids like rabbits and there is no faithful loving responsible family structure to care for the women and children.

People can prattle on til the end of time, but this nation was founded on the assumption that men would live like Christians and govern themselves, hence limited government. The 60’s destroyed that and here we are in the midst of a very predictable national meltdown. This is only debatable because people hate Christianity and will blow their brains before admitting that even Jefferson and Franklin declared the necessity of religion to the long term survival of their fledgling nation and though they certainly didn’t faithfully embrace it’s orthodoxy, Christianity was their favorite.

Providence plays a central role in the Declaration of Independence and providence is a distinctly Christian doctrine whereby whatsoever comes to pass in time has it’s origin in the mind and oversight of God. Jefferson called it “divine providence” straight from the lips of Whitfield and his great awakening, who was a staunch Calvinistic reformation protestant Christian which would horrify people today.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
What exactly do the conservatives have against libertarians? We both support a free market system, so we agree on that. Is it the social issues? As a libertarian, I believe that the government should stay out of matters such as marriage and reproduction. For me, the issue is not whether abortion or gay marriage are right or wrong (and for the record, I do think abortion is wrong except in certain cases), but rather, do we want Big Brother sticking his nose in the bedroom and the uterus. For me, the answer is a definitive “no.”[/quote]

If you read Sloth’s description, you would understand Conservatives do not, in fact, support a free market system. Indeed, it seems they support lamenting the loss of large families and religion, and using the state to enforce progressive social safety nets. Who knew?[/quote]I don’t understand what’s so hard to grasp about this. He is not saying that at all. What he is and has been saying forever, as have I, is that when you do not have a citizenry that voluntarily bridles it’s passions in what amounts to a socially conservative (read Judeo-Cristian) manner the natural, indeed the inevitable savior as the families disintegrate because everybody’s busy getting laid is the state. For the 500th time. My home town of Detroit is a ready made 157 square mile object lesson in this very thing. Almost half the population is under 40 and practically the whole population is on public assistance because they crank out kids like rabbits and there is no faithful loving responsible family structure to care for the women and children.

People can prattle on til the end of time, but this nation was founded on the assumption that men would live like Christians and govern themselves, hence limited government. The 60’s destroyed that and here we are in the midst of a very predictable national meltdown. This is only debatable because people hate Christianity and will blow their brains before admitting that even Jefferson and Franklin declared the necessity of religion to the long term survival of their fledgling nation and though they certainly didn’t faithfully embrace it’s orthodoxy, Christianity was their favorite.

Providence plays a central role in the Declaration of Independence and providence is a distinctly Christian doctrine whereby whatsoever comes to pass in time has it’s origin in the mind and oversight of God. Jefferson called it “divine providence” straight from the lips of Whitfield and his great awakening, who was a staunch Calvinistic reformation protestant Christian which would horrify people today.[/quote]

You are right to guess that I disagree with Sloth’s opinion; You are wrong to guess it is because I hate Christianity… or whatever it was you think I was disagreeing with.

I’ll allow that the crumbling of traditional social institutions ocurred alongside the development of the welfare state, and indeed they provide the same range of social services. But where Sloth throws up his hands and allows that somehow it is appropriate that I pay for a denizen of your city’s childcare, or some such product it would be inhumane for the poor to be without, I maintain that such an idea is rediculous because it so egregiously abrogates my freedom.

In essence, he has been broken to the welfare state because of his lack of belief in his fellow man to sack up and take responsibility themselves. I suffer no such despair. I honestly have no idea where you stand, aside from… Detroit, I guess.

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
What exactly do the conservatives have against libertarians? We both support a free market system, so we agree on that. Is it the social issues? As a libertarian, I believe that the government should stay out of matters such as marriage and reproduction. For me, the issue is not whether abortion or gay marriage are right or wrong (and for the record, I do think abortion is wrong except in certain cases), but rather, do we want Big Brother sticking his nose in the bedroom and the uterus. For me, the answer is a definitive “no.”[/quote]

If you read Sloth’s description, you would understand Conservatives do not, in fact, support a free market system. Indeed, it seems they support lamenting the loss of large families and religion, and using the state to enforce progressive social safety nets. Who knew?[/quote]I don’t understand what’s so hard to grasp about this. He is not saying that at all. What he is and has been saying forever, as have I, is that when you do not have a citizenry that voluntarily bridles it’s passions in what amounts to a socially conservative (read Judeo-Cristian) manner the natural, indeed the inevitable savior as the families disintegrate because everybody’s busy getting laid is the state. For the 500th time. My home town of Detroit is a ready made 157 square mile object lesson in this very thing. Almost half the population is under 40 and practically the whole population is on public assistance because they crank out kids like rabbits and there is no faithful loving responsible family structure to care for the women and children.

People can prattle on til the end of time, but this nation was founded on the assumption that men would live like Christians and govern themselves, hence limited government. The 60’s destroyed that and here we are in the midst of a very predictable national meltdown. This is only debatable because people hate Christianity and will blow their brains before admitting that even Jefferson and Franklin declared the necessity of religion to the long term survival of their fledgling nation and though they certainly didn’t faithfully embrace it’s orthodoxy, Christianity was their favorite.

Providence plays a central role in the Declaration of Independence and providence is a distinctly Christian doctrine whereby whatsoever comes to pass in time has it’s origin in the mind and oversight of God. Jefferson called it “divine providence” straight from the lips of Whitfield and his great awakening, who was a staunch Calvinistic reformation protestant Christian which would horrify people today.[/quote]

You are right to guess that I disagree with Sloth’s opinion; You are wrong to guess it is because I hate Christianity… or whatever it was you think I was disagreeing with.

I’ll allow that the crumbling of traditional social institutions ocurred alongside the development of the welfare state, and indeed they provide the same range of social services. But where Sloth throws up his hands and allows that somehow it is appropriate that I pay for a denizen of your city’s childcare, or some such product it would be inhumane for the poor to be without, I maintain that such an idea is rediculous because it so egregiously abrogates my freedom.

In essence, he has been broken to the welfare state because of his lack of belief in his fellow man to sack up and take responsibility themselves. I suffer no such despair. I honestly have no idea where you stand, aside from… Detroit, I guess.[/quote]

You’re trying to shoe-horn a political-economic philosophy into the wrong society. You’re standing there wondering why that cart isn’t going anywhere, anymore, while I’m trying to locate and bring back the horse.

I’ll let him explain. Also I wasn’t referring specifically to you, but many modern people general.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

For the 500th time. My home town of Detroit is a ready made 157 square mile object lesson in this very thing. Almost half the population is under 40 and practically the whole population is on public assistance because they crank out kids like rabbits and there is no faithful loving responsible family structure to care for the women and children.
[/quote]

No offense, T, but everyone knows that Detroit is pretty much a shithole. I’ve yet to meet anyone who had anything good to say about Detroit. I don’t blame you for having the ideas and beliefs that you have. If I lived in Detroit, I’d probably be praying every night too - that I wouldn’t be shot. Too bad you don’t live where I live, in the suburbs of Denver, and know the people I know. Good folks with good families. Many are fairly liberal-minded and not very religious, at least I don’t think they’re all that religious. We do just find without superstitions and a nanny state. So by all means, preach and pray in Detroit. But please stay out of my neighborhood.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re misunderstanding. When you don’t have a society that honors intact marriages and family, you don’t have any recourse but a big welfare state.[/quote]

How exactly does “society honor intact marriages”?

You make collectivist mistakes just like a liberal.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re misunderstanding. When you don’t have a society that honors intact marriages and family, you don’t have any recourse but a big welfare state.[/quote]

How exactly does “society honor intact marriages”?

You make collectivist mistakes just like a liberal.[/quote]

I bet you avoid the use of pronouns such as ‘we,’ ‘they,’ and ‘us’ for fear of advancing collectivist Marxism.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re misunderstanding. When you don’t have a society that honors intact marriages and family, you don’t have any recourse but a big welfare state.[/quote]

How exactly does “society honor intact marriages”?

You make collectivist mistakes just like a liberal.[/quote]

I bet you avoid the use of pronouns such as ‘we,’ ‘they,’ and ‘us.’[/quote]

No, only when it is incorrect to do so – but I am guilty of making the same mistakes. The important thing is that I try to correct them. It’s not always easy to see where such pronouns are acceptable to use and not.

e.g.

My family took a trip to the Grand Canyon. It was the first time for “us”. The wife and kids took a donkey down to the bottom and “they” got lost. “We” stayed in this awesome B&B and had a great time.

Do you see why the above example is correct and using the term “society” is not?

Now, please answer my question.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]

No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]

No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to. [/quote]

Well, by all means, please provide a list of individuals who are worthy of your discussion. That way we don’t take up precious bandwidth asking you questions.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]

No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to. [/quote]

Well, by all means, please provide a list of individuals who are worthy of your discussion. That way we don’t take up precious bandwidth asking you questions.[/quote]

The holier-than-thou attitude from conservatives, especially on this board, is truly funny. They have “experience” and “tradition”. AKA they automatically win.

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Now, please answer my question.[/quote]

No. I’m kind of over treating austrian-anarchists as if they’re a serious contribution to any discussion. As to why, see this exchange. You won’t understand that, nor would I expect you to. [/quote]

Well, by all means, please provide a list of individuals who are worthy of your discussion. That way we don’t take up precious bandwidth asking you questions.[/quote]

The holier-than-thou attitude from conservatives, especially on this board, is truly funny. They have “experience” and “tradition”. AKA they automatically win.[/quote]

Hahaha, that’s funny! This reminds me of the arguments I have with my father-in-law. Traditions are holy and to be respected always to some people so I started this new argument technique. I “invoke tradition”:

“Sorry, Pops, I can’t agree to it because it’s against my tradition.”

“Since when?”

“Yesterday.”

Win!