Proof that the anti-war crowd are weak minded fools - New England Patriots Forums

07-23-2006, 03:33 PM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...279792,00.html

Hey dumb*****, The Palestinians want to kill every man, woman, and child in Israel, they want to wipe you out completely! And here you rufusing to defend yourselves, your children, and your homeland. I'm sure when the Palestinian murderers show up at your house, they will thank you for not putting up a fight, right before they behead you in the name of Allah.

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-23-2006, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

SO, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, WAR AND KILLING IS GOOD, CEASEFIRE AND LIVING IS BAD. That's more or less what you are saying.

War and Killing Are necessary when you have enemies who want you dead at all cost...even the cost of their own death to kill you.

Humans are programmed for survival...liberals deny the basic instict of survival based on the premise that all humans are inherently good and that good sometimes needs to be found. Non-liberals realize bad people will always be bad and bad people only use peace as a means of making killing easier and more shocking.

NEM...thanks for in your short sentence explaining why terrorists kill innocent people. Terrorism's greatest advantage is ceasefires, peace, and killing people who value life to shock them into retreat.

This method existed long before Bush and will exist long after he is gone. Liberals think history can be changed by using intelligence and civility...maybe, if they were dealing with real humans...these people are just simple animals...you are either alive and good or you are bad and dead where you belong.

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-23-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

AND BTW, this comment of yours is a crock of bull*****.

Humans are programmed for survival...liberals deny the basic instict of survival based on the premise that all humans are inherently good and that good sometimes needs to be found. Non-liberals realize bad people will always be bad and bad people only use peace as a means of making killing easier and more shocking.

I could fill a few pages of links...here's just a few...you can search for yourself...Liberals believe man is inherently good...I kid you not and I'm not the one who defined it.

When Patters is on...perhaps he would be happy to define liberalism. You will see I'm in the ballpark. Liberals believe humans are basically good and power and restrictions force their behavior from this.

Conservatives believe bad people are bad and society needs restrictions for the good of society. I often wonder how many people really understand all this...I think many do here...but I also believe there are many on the banmdwagon in public who have no clue...they are the sheeple and they exist right and left.

Quote:

http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html

Excellant read regardless of beliefs...well done historical account that tries to collectively define

"The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism"

Any single attempt to chronicle the history of classical liberalism cannot do justice to the immense richness and diversity of the individuals or movements within it. In this story three distinct flavors coexist and often blend: the realistic English tradition of law, the rationalistic French tradition of humanism, and the organic German tradition of individualism. Gray characterizes these three as competing yet complementary definitions of liberty, with Britain representing independence, France self-rule, and Germany self-realization (13). Beyond these national differences, two parallel concepts survive throughout the history of classical liberalism irrespective of geographical boundaries. One is predicated upon a negative view of human nature, accepting that people are equally fallen and incapable of perfection. It follows from this perspective that power must be limited because it would allow some corrupt individuals to do more harm than others. The other view maintains that all people are inherently good and perfectible, so power must be limited to allow humanity to evolve toward a more perfect order of self-government.

Quote:

http://www.eternityroad.info/index.p..._of_a_feather/
The liberal predisposition is to believe that Man is inherently good and must be made bad by social or environmental distortions. This is at the root of liberal emphasis on “social justice.” The sincere liberal tends to believe that everyone would behave peacefully and civilly if only there were enough jobs and government-funded social services. Since this worldview denies the possibility of consciously chosen evil, it is incompatible with other beliefs to which the concept of volitional evil is an important component.

The conservative predisposition is to believe that Man’s will is free, that in the main individuals choose good or evil as roads to what they want. This is at the root of conservative emphasis on uniform and reliable criminal justice. The sincere conservative tends to believe that people can be deterred from choosing evil if the punishment for evil is made sufficiently certain and harsh. Since this worldview refuses to exculpate a predator on the grounds that his upbringing or environment twisted him willy-nilly into his anti-social shape, it is incompatible with other beliefs that postulate impersonal social influences that can override free will or numb the moral sense.

BruschiOnTap · 07-23-2006, 10:09 PM

Why do you need to apply a tag to every single way of thinking? Different people have different ethical systems and worldviews, causing a different way of looking at an issue. Feminists view abortion as a rights issue. I see it as a matter of overall happiness (very utilitarian, I admit). Others see it as taking life, a gift from God. While my view is utilitarian I don't think my stance makes me a 'liberal.' I wouldn't always consider NEM a liberal. It's clear he values human life. Who doesn't? As for the title of this thread, are there no wars that you would be opposed to???

07-25-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

SO, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, WAR AND KILLING IS GOOD, CEASEFIRE AND LIVING IS BAD. That's more or less what you are saying.

No NEM..what I am saying is that in order to survive, you have to fight for it.

Pujo · 07-25-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELOrocks17

No NEM..what I am saying is that in order to survive, you have to fight for it.

Of course you have to be able to fight, but you have to know when to fight and when not to. I'm a big Russian, almost 6'4", over 200lbs, but I wouldn't survive very long if I just went picking fights with people.

07-25-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Of course you have to be able to fight, but you have to know when to fight and when not to. I'm a big Russian, almost 6'4", over 200lbs, but I wouldn't survive very long if I just went picking fights with people.

So you are saying that Israel should just sit back and let their soldiers continue to be kidnapped eh?

Pujo · 07-25-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELOrocks17

So you are saying that Israel should just sit back and let their soldiers continue to be kidnapped eh?

No, I'm on Israel's side here - they're doing what they have to do to protect themselves.

I'm saying that the world isn't so black-and-white that you can just adopt "fight anyone, anywhere, anytime" as your mantra.

***QuiGon*** · 07-25-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

SO, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, WAR AND KILLING IS GOOD, CEASEFIRE AND LIVING IS BAD. That's more or less what you are saying.

I can't speak for ELORocks, but I can say you sound an awful lot like the appeasers of the 1930's. Everyone wants peace, but "Peace at any cost" has historically opened the door to tyranny and oppression time and again.

07-25-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuiGon

I can't speak for ELORocks, but I can say you sound an awful lot like the appeasers of the 1930's. Everyone wants peace, but "Peace at any cost" has historically opened the door to tyranny and oppression time and again.

When does "peace" end, and "capitulation" begin?