The Killing Joke

[Varqanir]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Nationalism is desperately needed in order to try to preserve both the nation(which is in peril) and European culture and Western civilisation (which are also under threat). [/quote]

When you say “nationalism” do you refer specifically to Australian, American, or British nationalism (either separately or in the aggregate “Angloism”), or to a sort of pan-Western European monoculturalism?

And how do any of these movements arise and empower themselves without being mistaken for (or developing into) racist or white supremacist movements?

And I don’t know who said you are a nihilist but the term can have many different meanings.

Oh, that’s just Pushharder messing with me. Every time the conversation drifts toward the theory of evolution, the origins of the universe, or anything related to a non-literal interpretation of Scripture, he accuses me (mostly in jest, I’m pretty sure) of being an atheist, an agnostic, a nihilist, a “True Believer in the Cult of Science” or some combination of these… along with the aforementioned “erudite sophisticate”.

In the sense I usually use it I mean anyone who doesn’t believe in God is essentially an existential nihilist unless they embark upon what Becker called an “immortality project” to give meaning and purpose to their lives. But that’s a different topic.

As I understand it, a nihilist is someone who believes that nothing is real, that life is meaningless, and that all moral principles are thereby invalid.

This is definitely not me.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

When you say “nationalism” do you refer specifically to Australian, American, or British nationalism (either separately or in the aggregate “Angloism”), or to a sort of pan-Western European monoculturalism?

[/quote]

Any kind of nationalism. Although I’m not fixated on racial homogeneity. Nationalism entails a “people” who do not necessarily have to be all the same race. So for example, I consider American nationalism to include native Americans and the descendants of black slaves along with all the different European people as members of the nation.

And how do any of these movements arise and empower themselves without being mistaken for (or developing into) racist or white supremacist movements?

The real problem is actually the anti-Semites in the movement although they tend to be the “racist” ones towards other races too. But aside from that fringe, most white Westerners are not fixated on race.

Oh, that’s just Pushharder messing with me. Every time the conversation drifts toward the theory of evolution, the origins of the universe, or anything related to a non-literal interpretation of Scripture, he accuses me (mostly in jest, I’m pretty sure) of being an atheist, an agnostic, a nihilist, a “True Believer in the Cult of Science” or some combination of these… along with the aforementioned “erudite sophisticate”.

Disbelief in God(atheism) does inevitably lead to a worldview informed by a mindset of existential nihilism.

[quote]

As I understand it, a nihilist is someone who believes that nothing is real, that life is meaningless, and that all moral principles are thereby invalid.

This is definitely not me. [/quote]

There are different types of nihilism. If you don’t believe in an afterlife or God then it’s impossible to comprehend objective morality.

[Varqanir]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Disbelief in God(atheism) does inevitably lead to a worldview informed by a mindset of existential nihilism.

As I understand it, a nihilist is someone who believes that nothing is real, that life is meaningless, and that all moral principles are thereby invalid.

This is definitely not me. [/quote]

There are different types of nihilism. If you don’t believe in an afterlife or God then it’s impossible to comprehend objective morality.

I disagree, but it’s a moot point, as I am not an atheist.

[NorCal916]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

He thinks baseball, mom and apple pie are racist.[/quote]

Well, that’s just preposterous.

There is nothing even remotely racist about apple pie.[/quote]

Sure it is. Red and green apples lose their identity and are turned into brown mush.

[SexMachine]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

He thinks baseball, mom and apple pie are racist.[/quote]

Well, that’s just preposterous.

There is nothing even remotely racist about apple pie.[/quote]

Sure it is. Red and green apples lose their identity and are turned into brown mush.
[/quote]

The best apple pies I’ve ever had are from Bilpin - an apple growing region in the mountains west of Sydney. The pies I get there get thicker towards the middle and are four inches thick or more in the centre. The pastry is golden and crunchy with granules of raw sugar across the top. I’ve noticed some of the best ones the apple pieces take on a purplish colour. I prefer apple pie with a good homemade custard. But my favourite is rhubarb pie and rhubarb crumble with custard.

[SexMachine]

I think the secret to the best apple pie is the apples of course but also a good pastry and the apples should be cooked with cinnamon, all spice and a couple of cloves which you remove before baking. The pastry is a matter of taste but it should rise and be golden brown. Flakey or buscuity/crunchy is a matter of personal preference.

[on_edge]

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

He thinks baseball, mom and apple pie are racist.[/quote]

Well, that’s just preposterous.

There is nothing even remotely racist about apple pie.[/quote]

Sure it is. Red and green apples lose their identity and are turned into brown mush.
[/quote]

More stupidity. ONE DOES NOT MAKE APPLE PIE WITH RED APPLES. TART GREEN APPLES ONLY!
My apologies if that is racists to say.

[Varqanir]

[quote]on edge wrote:

ONE DOES NOT MAKE APPLE PIE WITH RED APPLES.
[/quote]

Racist as hell. Not only blatantly discriminatory, but dripping with cultural insensitivity.

The approved term is Native American apples.

[countingbeans]

[quote]on edge wrote:
You’ve got nothing Beans. You’re like the kid in the playground who has no idea what to say to the other kid so he yells “fagot” at him. Instead of fagot you just throw around hypocrite and elitist. You’re just an older version of that kid. Those HURTFUL words just don’t apply to me or anything I’ve written.

I’ve been very consistent and not hypocritical. [/quote]

lmao… Rrriiiiiggghht

I even agree with you that guy you called stupid is pretty dumb. You repeatedly made a point to him and he just didn’t get it. I understand your frustration but it was hypocritical of you to call him stupid after you called me out on doing the same thing. Then it was pathetic and even more hypocritical when you tried to back out of that. You got frustrated and you called him stupid. You weren’t joking around with him and you pretty much admitted it in your very next sentence.

I like to open the jeopardy theme while reading your posts waiting for substance, but they are always about who is posting, not any of the points they are making.

And if it helps you sleep at night that your arguments are so devoid of substance that you have to judge me as “pathetic” and whatever other nonsense you vomit up on screen, then, by all means, keep on believing. The day your judgments of others matters, I’ll consider caring what your opinion of a poster is.

I think the burden of proof that morality comes from god is on you religious types.

lol, you have zero fucking clue what kind of “type” I am, and it is telling you won’t address DD, who said it, but instead me.

But hey, at least you’re bordering on actually contributing to the topic and not just bashing who is saying things.

You would have to prove god before you could do that and there is no undeniable proof of god at this point.

Why?

The definition of the word faith comes to mind… Why would one have to “prove god” in order for faith in gad to dictate morality?

Never the less, I will acquiesce.

lmao… and you wonder why you’re called elitist.

Lets take one of the corner stones of christian morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or something similar). This doesn’t require or come from any type of divinity.

I have no idea if this is a corner stone or not, but above you said one had to “prove god”, and then here say it isn’t required that God be. So which is it? Does one have to prove God or is God not required?

Can you prove it doesn’t come from “any type of divinity”?

It’s a simple BARTER SYSTEM! It’s people coming to an agreement that they won’t kill, rob and slander each other, among other things. It’s like in college when you moved in with a buddy, you both said “Hey, lets set up some cool rules so we can get along and remain friends.”

You just compared morality to a college dorm room and have the nerve to insult other people’s intelligence?

wow.

[quote]Are you happy now?
[/quote]

I never really cared either way. I just like posting about you so maybe next time you’ll actually add to the discussion rather than fly-by personal attacks. Because by now, based on your responses, it appears you get the point.

[magick]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Never the less, I will acquiesce.

lmao… and you wonder why you’re called elitist.
[/quote]

Acquiesce is not an elitist word =(

[countingbeans]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Never the less, I will acquiesce.

lmao… and you wonder why you’re called elitist.
[/quote]

Acquiesce is not an elitist word =([/quote]

If it was a commentary on his vocabulary I would have said “good word”, because it is a good word, and I like it.

It’s the air of “oh fine, if I must entertain you surfs, I shall” tone to it.

[Varqanir]

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Never the less, I will acquiesce.

lmao… and you wonder why you’re called elitist.
[/quote]

Acquiesce is not an elitist word =([/quote]

Any word with over two syllables is an elitist word in Murka.

[Varqanir]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s the air of “oh fine, if I must entertain you surfs, I shall” tone to it. [/quote]

The word is “serfs”, old chap. With an “e”.

And in any event, I think “plebs” is probably the word you were after.

[Gkhan]

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
The idea to nuke Mecca could be the War on Terror equivalent of the Cold War M.A.D. theory, that neither side would start a war because of the dreaded consequences. I think that’s what chicken is trying to imply. Since the terrorists “love death like we love life” and are downright suicidal, possibly threatening something that’s sacred to them would get them to think twice…am I right chicken?[/quote]

yes[/quote]

Maybe we should wait until the Chinese or Russians get so pissed off with radical Islam, they’ll do it. But I think, in their eyes, we brought a lot of this on ourselves. We funded radical Islamists (the genesis of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, unfortunately) against Russia, not knowing these maniacs would bite the hand that fed them, are allies with Israel, helped take down a couple of Russian allies and working on a third which totally backfired all across the board and created the ISIS threat.

All my life I’be been pretty pro-US. I was all for them during the cold war, doing what we had to do to take down the Communists, all for us during the Gulf war and the war against Afghanistan. I was against the war on Iraq at first, but I wanted us to win it real bad. But, hell, in the last 4 years I was like “American foreign policy…wtf?”

I must admit, when George W Bush lumped North Korea and Iran, who originally may have supported us in the war against Al-Qaeda, into the Axis of Evil I was appalled. But Obama went over and above any stupid move made by the Bush administration. Hell, taking down Qaddafi and backing the opposition against Assad was just stupid. I know I changed my mind back and forth on this subject and you can check my posts to affirm that, but now I can really see the Russian point of view on things for the first time in my life and it stinks.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s the air of “oh fine, if I must entertain you surfs, I shall” tone to it. [/quote]

The word is “serfs”, old chap. With an “e”.

And in any event, I think “plebs” is probably the word you were after.

:)[/quote]

Correct on both accounts. If only my community college was “free” I would be better versed…

sigh…

merica!

[Gkhan]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[
And how do any of these movements arise and empower themselves without being mistaken for (or developing into) racist or white supremacist movements?
[/quote]

That’s easy. When the movements arise in Communist China, for instance, they can not be mistaken for white supremacist movements…racist, definitely, white supremacist, no way.

[Gkhan]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

ONE DOES NOT MAKE APPLE PIE WITH RED APPLES.
[/quote]

Racist as hell. Not only blatantly discriminatory, but dripping with cultural insensitivity.

The approved term is Native American apples.[/quote]

Native American? I thought he was talking about Communist Apples.

[MaximusB]

No one from the Bam Admin showed up ? Not even someone useless like Biden or Kerry ?

[on_edge]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I have no idea if this is a corner stone or not, but above you said one had to “prove god”, and then here say it isn’t required that God be. So which is it? Does one have to prove God or is God not required?

Can you prove it doesn’t come from “any type of divinity”?

[/quote]

Good grief, you’re talking in circles. This is my point. God isn’t required for morality.

[on_edge]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

ONE DOES NOT MAKE APPLE PIE WITH RED APPLES.
[/quote]

Racist as hell. Not only blatantly discriminatory, but dripping with cultural insensitivity.
[/quote]

I’m profiling too. After all, I’m sure there are some red apples that are nice and tart for apple pie but the percentages are low so I only consider the greens.