Jump to content
Pebbles Bagley

When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 201 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Awww come on, you were supposed to say something about the last guy who said the bit about the North star met a grisly end!

I never read Julius Caesar. Although I know the quote "Et tu, Brute?" I never watched the Titanic. Both for the same reason: I knew how they ended. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

badly overcooked spaghettini -- without the sauce.

Demmit. I was going to make spaghetti for dinner. shakefist.gif.640a4ea3a79bfd26897baa5577345167.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RonsBallroom said:

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away

And We are so grateful for their good work, unflinching support and selfless sacrifice.

Blessed be their warm, gooey extremities.

Signed, the Trans Agenda.

 

1254946696_meltingally.jpeg.a533d6d6c3ed88f4c6be629ef985bc09.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Um, says who? Where is the demonstration or proof that this is what motivates Marxist intellectuals? Reading intention is always highly iffy, but I'm supposed to just accept this guy's say-so? And who says Marxists even want to "control the world"? What does that even mean? And how do you define "Marxist"?

And when you haven't even bothered to prove your premises, your conclusion is bound to be as flimsy as a half-finished spider web. Tacking "since" on to the beginning of a sentence, and then throwing in a "conclude" -- as though we'd been given any actual data to analyze in the first place -- is just rhetorical sleight-of-hand: it's cheap, meaningless, and fraudulent.

Sorry, Derek: this guy is demonstrating here all the intellectual rigour and nourishment of bowl of badly overcooked spaghettini -- without the sauce.

Who has said this? And what is "good"?

Being "nice" is insufficient proof of anything, and certainly not of "correctness" -- but, since we are speaking of intention and motivation, it is at least an index of ethical and moral belief.

That ain't enough, but it's not a bad place to start.

 

I wish to god, seriously, that conservatism could find an intellectual and philosophical voice of real power and ideas, rather than the shabby and half-baked populism of a Peterson or a Scruton. Where is the modern version of Burke, or Macaulay? We actually need intelligent and thoughtful conservative voices -- but this ain't one of 'em.

Hellooooooooooooo Scylla😀

Always a pleasure to see you.

I appreciate you contributing here and asking pertinent questions and posting objections, however, it was not my intent to initiate a long drawn out discussion in defense of either Scruton or Conservatism. I was perusing this thread on Sunday and seeing Tolya's posts thought that he might be interested in some of what Scruton had to say, if he had not already known, especially as he was in my thoughts considering his passing on Sunday.

As you probably have guessed, these quotations are excerpts drawn from separate essays which you, or anyone else for that matter, are welcome to read at their leisure which may provide answers to not only your points but also any they themselves may have. I should have provided these sources in the post.

The first quote is from here;

https://www.roger-scruton.com/books/109-a-political-philosophy-arguments-for-conservatism

(I looked for a site that has the precise page to reference but was 5 pages deep in search and didn't see one so you will have to read the whole thing, LOL)

The second is here;

https://portalconservador.com/livros/Roger-Scruton-Conservative-Texts-An-Anthology.pdf

(It is in his Introduction, in the section entitled Property and Justice on pg 20, the quote is near the top of pg 21)

 

If it wasn't clear, the third quotation is also Scruton, and I believe it is from here;

https://www.roger-scruton.com/books/105-beauty

 

I hope that these will suffice. In the past, when I had the time, I would have enjoyed engaging in this exploration with you for as many days as were necessary to cover the issues, or until the thread was locked, in all probability the fate of this one very shortly, which is another reason that precludes me from getting to deeply involved as I have more respect for my time than I do for LL, their TOS and CG, as well as a few other unmentionables who are beneath contempt for their hypocrisy and lack of self awareness...

Until the next Scylla, be well. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Derek Torvalar said:

Hellooooooooooooo Scylla😀

Always a pleasure to see you.

I appreciate you contributing here and asking pertinent questions and posting objections, however, it was not my intent to initiate a long drawn out discussion in defense of either Scruton or Conservatism. I was perusing this thread on Sunday and seeing Tolya's posts thought that he might be interested in some of what Scruton had to say, if he had not already known, especially as he was in my thoughts considering his passing on Sunday.

As you probably have guessed, these quotations are excerpts drawn from separate essays which you, or anyone else for that matter, are welcome to read at their leisure which may provide answers to not only your points but also any they themselves may have. I should have provided these sources in the post.

The first quote is from here;

https://www.roger-scruton.com/books/109-a-political-philosophy-arguments-for-conservatism

(I looked for a site that has the precise page to reference but was 5 pages deep in search and didn't see one so you will have to read the whole thing, LOL)

The second is here;

https://portalconservador.com/livros/Roger-Scruton-Conservative-Texts-An-Anthology.pdf

(It is in his Introduction, in the section entitled Property and Justice on pg 20, the quote is near the top of pg 21)

 

If it wasn't clear, the third quotation is also Scruton, and I believe it is from here;

https://www.roger-scruton.com/books/105-beauty

 

I hope that these will suffice. In the past, when I had the time, I would have enjoyed engaging in this exploration with you for as many days as were necessary to cover the issues, or until the thread was locked, in all probability the fate of this one very shortly, which is another reason that precludes me from getting to deeply involved as I have more respect for my time than I do for LL, their TOS and CG, as well as a few other unmentionables who are beneath contempt for their hypocrisy and lack of self awareness...

Until the next Scylla, be well. 😉

Helloooooooo Derek!

Nice to see you here, and thanks for the links, which I will indeed peruse (probably with sour look on my face).

In the meantime, you can take comfort from the fact that I probably wouldn't have even bothered to address this had it come from someone else.

Take care, be enjoyably busy, as well as productively so . . . and, of course, be well. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mollymews said:

i know the Bible quite well. I can quote the Bible chapter and verse all day. Not that I going to tho. Will make quite a few people reading get a sore head

the god of this world knows everything about this world. The god knows how many decisions there are, where every path leads at every step, and what all of the possible outcomes are. The person doesn't know how many decisions they will have to make in their lifetime, and the person doesn't know absolutely what the outcomes are either until they get there

then the god gives the person free will - decide/choose the path as the person wants

in addition to knowing everything about the world, the god also knows what the outcomes will never be for the person every time the person makes a decision

decison 1. Choose Left. The person will never get to Outcome 5
decision 2. Choose Right. The person will never get to Outcomes 1 or 5
decision 3. Choose Left. Then person will never get to Outcomes 1, 4 or 5
decision 4. Choose Left. The person can never be at Outcomes 1, 3, 4 or 5

Your implication of God knowing all possibilities and then we choose from those possibilities is not true free well. That is a cop out and nothing more. Considering he knows these possibilities before we even decide on them suggests that he has already outlined those possibilities and they cant be changed. You are putting faith in that those are the only possibilities.

Suggesting something like that is the equivalent of reading a choose your own adventure novel, whereby the author (God) has written what paths are possible and I then make a choice from those. Sorry, not buying that. This is precisely why the topic as I mentioned has been argued by what I would assume (not trying to be mean) far more knowledgeable people than you or I over 3000 years. Just read what was posted in the links provided already in this thread by others as one of the philosophers even states what you state. As they put it he is outside of the timeline and can view all possibilities, but as mentioned by those very same links and the contradictions of the other philosophers, this has its problems due to you still having to make a choice of those pre-determined possibilities.

Quote

and is often preached by the church as if it is absolutely true, by qualification/implication

I see. So, if someone has a degree in theology, has learned all meanings implied in the Greek or Hebrew texts (which in some cases are actually different to what is implied in the English version), read all the philosophical discussions of the church fathers and also knows the cross referencing of the Talmud, they preach it wrong? Interesting. I don't know your qualifications but to imply those with higher degrees and knowledge as saying things are wrong, says it all and only implies that you believe one thing yet many others believe it means something else. That is not knowledge or an answer, that is called interpretation.

I'll copy a few of the church fathers understanding of the situation to show even they believed God knows the future and your choices.

"For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice." Jerome (circa 347 – 420)

"For it was not foreknowledge which justified people, but God knew what would happen to them, because he is God." Theodoret of Cyrus (circa 393 – 457)

"It is not because God knows that something is going to be that that thing is going to be, but rather it is because it is going to be that it is known by God before it comes to be. For even if we imagine for the sake of argument that God does not foreknow anything it was without a doubt going to happen that, say Judas became a traitor, and this is just the way the prophets foretold it would happen. Therefore, it was not because the prophets foretold it that Judas became a traitor, but rather it was because he was going to be a traitor..." Origen (circa 185–254)

All those in their own way state that God knew what was going to be as far as their decisions. The Judas one implies this especially as it shows that centuries before, God stated in prophecy, that he WAS going to betray Christ. In other words his sin was going to be absolute, irreversible and already made for him.

Edited by Drayke Newall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

I never read Julius Caesar. Although I know the quote "Et tu, Brute?" I never watched the Titanic. Both for the same reason: I knew how they ended. 😛

Please tell me you were required to at least read McBeth or Hamlet in order to joing adult society!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Please tell me you were required to at least read McBeth or Hamlet in order to joing adult society!

  1. No Shakespeare required, possibly because I went to 3 high schools, in 3 different states.
  2. What gave you the impression that I have joined adult society? That sounds horrendous.
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RonsBallroom said:

When someone mentions their preferred pronouns, it is very useful - it lets me know they are lunatics and best ignored.

'Non-binary' is the biggest hoax of the 2010s. Just a way for spoilt brats to discard biological fact and reason for the chance to scream at them evil 'cis' white men - the same men they depend on for handouts. 

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away and the media people pushing this madness become thoroughly embarrassed by it all. 

Ok boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ok, yes I see from further comments that you're not implying Blaise is virtue-signalling.

I just want to point out though, that one can be very strident in arguing for their side, or lack social skills required for debating, or demonize the other side, or say they believe the other side is totally wrong -- but this does not have to mean they are virtue-signalling -- virtue signalling means someone is being fake & putting on a show to feel superior by appearing to champion a cause, & not really caring about the issue they're pushing for.

I absolutely agree.

I do feel that we need to build bridges and not walls every chance we get. Our neighbors are not the Enemy (Even the more pugnacious ones), so I’m “keen” on treating them the way I would treat a friend when we must disagree on something.

The polarization that exists today will not be solved by One Big Thing, but by lots of people finding ways to resolve their issues without building grudges in the process.

How we get along together determines the shape of our grandchildren’s world; I’d like that world to be better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

Jerome

Theodoret

Origen

this here from Jerome:

"For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice." Jerome (circa 347 – 420)

"in asmuch as He is God". Jerome qualifies the statement

 

the sentence from Theordoret of Cyr. Is in response to his reading of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans

Theodoret in full reads: "Those whose intention God foreknew he predestined from the beginning. Those who are predestined, he called, and those who were called, he justified by baptism. Those who were justified, he glorified, calling them his children: To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become the children of God. Let no one say that God's foreknowledge what the unilateral cause of these things. For it was not foreknowledge which justified people, but God knew what would happen to them, because he is God"

"Those whose intention God foreknew he predestined from the beginning". Theoderet qualifies who is being talked about


Origen didn't qualify anything. Origen is an unashamedly firm believer

as something else attributed to Origin shows: "I do not deny in the least that the rational nature will always keep its free will, but I declare that the power and effectiveness of Christ's cross and of his death, which he took upon himself toward the end of the aeons, are so great as to be enough to set right and save, not only the present and the future aeon, but also all the past ones, and not only this order of us humans, but also the heavenly orders and powers."

in saying this Origen doesn't deny free will when attributed to rational nature (? rational thought?) Which Origen then proceeds to declare against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

If that's the way you truly feel, what a miserable rotten life

 

Think that description's for the trans 'women' who kill themselves after realising they've mutilated their bodies beyond repair, for the sake of some dumb fetish. A sad process enabled by irresponsible cheerleaders like you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RonsBallroom said:

Think that description's for the trans 'women' who kill themselves after realising they've mutilated their bodies beyond repair, for the sake of some dumb fetish. A sad process enabled by irresponsible cheerleaders like you. 

Acutally trans suicide is caused by others rejecting our indenity to the point of abusing us.

From family disownment, eviction, violence and of course to be blunt: people like yourself who think that trans women, trans men (who are rarely if ever brought up by your sort. Why the hyper fixition on trans women?) and non binary people are just fetishists  mutaliating ourselves instead of you know.

 

 

People just trying to live regular lives like anybody else.  With respect, dignity and the right to not be harassed or killed.

Edited by AylinVali
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, RonsBallroom said:

I think in the 2020s we'll see less and less of this, as their 'allies' melt away and the media people pushing this madness become thoroughly embarrassed by it all. 

And remember, y'all - Ron's Ballroom predicted that their club would be the best in Second Life and just look at it today. Just search for it. Go 'head...

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

And remember, y'all - Ron's Ballroom predicted that their club would be the best in Second Life and just look at it today. Just search for it. Go 'head...

That's disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Sounds like a lovely fellow, Derek.  From your BBC link...https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51084248

"in 2002, he was criticised for writing articles in defence of smoking without acknowledging that he was being paid by JTI, one of the largest tobacco companies."

Seems a bad trait among Trumpers....not really caring if somebody is a creep.

What makes him a creep?  Defending smoking (a choice free people are allowed to make, sort of like smoking dope or drinking alcohol), or the fact that he defended it while being paid by JTI (which would be the same as any paid staffer on the Bernie campaign writing something in support of Bernie), or the fact that he didn't disclose it (which would be the same as if said Bernie supporter didn't disclose on any Tweet or post or editorial that he/she is paid by the Bernie campaign)?  It's not like this guy was a scientist who might be fudging his data or scientific rigor to benefit his sponsor.

Sure smoking is a choice, but non-fiction writers have a responsibility to the community, a responsibility to report FACTS -- and it's been proven that smoking is harmful...the cause of many lung cancers.
By placing his articles in numerous magazines in order to earn money from the tobacco industry he attempted to override WHO (World Health Organization) with no regard for causing the deaths of others in the pursuit of lining one's pockets.
The guy was earning close to $100,000.00 usd yearly in today's money via placing his articles in various magazines, requested an additional 12k, and he clearly states why he believed it was okay -- he claimed WHO was trying to "impose the social and political agenda of a handful of activists" upon the rest of the world.
So his own political agenda and greed was more important than the life of others.
   
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jan/24/advertising.tobaccoadvertising  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122192/
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Scruton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:
19 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Sounds like a lovely fellow, Derek.  From your BBC link...https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51084248

Just spent some time reading up on this guy. 

The tobacco thing was least of his sins. 

“Whole new crimes have come into existence, like this supposed crime of ‘date rape’. What that means is — of course there is no such crime — but nevertheless, when a woman cries ‘date rape’ what she means is ‘the whole thing went too quickly’, you know, ‘I was not prepared’, and so consent is withdrawn as it were in retrospect.”

“Likewise, the charge of sexual harassment. This was never made in the past. It was called impoliteness if somebody put his hand on your knee prematurely, or if it was the wrong hand. But nowadays, of course, ‘sexual harassment’ just means sexual advances made by the unattractive, who are the majority, so there is a huge injustice in this.”

And then there is this big bunch of crap.

I'm taking away three things from reading about this infected puss-filled boil of a human.

1. I can't look at his name without seeing "scrotum".

2. He was sued by the Pet Shop Boys and lost.

3. He's dead.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

Oh Beth, it just gets worse. Thanks for pointing beyond the tobacco issue, as I wasn't going to dig deeper. The more I research this guy the worse it gets. He was fired from a govt position due to even more bizarre comments. And he is a major figure in the conservative movement! I didn't know they had such cray-cray in the UK:
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/04/10/roger-scruton-fired-building-better-building-beautiful-commission/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Where is the modern version of Burke, or Macaulay? We actually need intelligent and thoughtful conservative voices -- but this ain't one of 'em.

Apparently Roger Scruton is touted by some as the modern day Burke. I'm finding this video interesting (double your pleasure), a discussion between Scruton & Peterson: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvbtKAYdcZY
A bit too philosophically heavy in the beginning, but check out the 25 minute mark for Peterson's definition of power structures (apparently we're just jealous of those who have more power and haven't figured out how to have our own power, and out of a desire to blame we created a theory of power stratification in society that doesn't exist).
Lesbians only exist because women want a longer-term connection and men tend to leave (well at least he is not blaming women as he usually does, but apparently he's never witnessed the lesbian musical chairs of young lesbians). *this may be in another previous video of Scruton's.
All this and I've only made it to the 26 minute mark! And the setting of the discussion - not sure yet I haven't stumbled on to a Saturday Night Live parody.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AmandaKeen said:

I absolutely agree.

I do feel that we need to build bridges and not walls every chance we get. Our neighbors are not the Enemy (Even the more pugnacious ones), so I’m “keen” on treating them the way I would treat a friend when we must disagree on something.

The polarization that exists today will not be solved by One Big Thing, but by lots of people finding ways to resolve their issues without building grudges in the process.

How we get along together determines the shape of our grandchildren’s world; I’d like that world to be better.

I agree with your philosophy, and as a liberal it's one I believe in.  But the 'other side'  often does not have the same philosophy as a  liberal, and most likely they would not believe you were truly being nice but instead  suspect you were attempting to manipulate them with your "niceness" (even if unaware of doing so), and they would feel in the end they dominated you  :(

I'm not sure what to do about this...moving forward in debates with conservatives...and of course it depends on which conservative one is interacting with.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RonsBallroom said:

Think that description's for the trans 'women' who kill themselves after realising they've mutilated their bodies beyond repair, for the sake of some dumb fetish. A sad process enabled by irresponsible cheerleaders like you. 

Once again, you're wrong. I mean really horrifyingly wrong. So incredibly wrong that you probably should never leave your basement again and have your internet taking away from you for being so mind-numbingly, hatefully wrong that you shouldn't be allowed to ever communicate with other human beings. 

What I'd really like to know, though, is how trans people affect your life in any way, shape, or form? Why are you so concerned with the lives of others? Are you really that insecure in your own existence that you must try to sweep others away?

wrong.gif.de60347559bc121552a0699cb117ce3c.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Sure smoking is a choice, but non-fiction writers have a responsibility to the community, a responsibility to report FACTS -- and it's been proven that smoking is harmful...the cause of many lung cancers.
By placing his articles in numerous magazines in order to earn money from the tobacco industry he attempted to override WHO (World Health Organization) with no regard for causing the deaths of others in the pursuit of lining one's pockets.
The guy was earning close to $100,000.00 usd yearly in today's money via placing his articles in various magazines, requested an additional 12k, and he clearly states why he believed it was okay -- he claimed WHO was trying to "impose the social and political agenda of a handful of activists" upon the rest of the world.
So his own political agenda and greed was more important than the life of others.
   
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/jan/24/advertising.tobaccoadvertising  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122192/
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Scruton

Without browsing through what I am sure are excellent articles - did he ever once claim smoking is NOT harmful?  I'm doubting it, but you're free to clip and paste a quote from any of your sources where he does so.  If not, then perhaps you can post whatever "facts" ge was not truthful about?  I'm doubting you can do that, either, but feel free to prove me wrong.

If, on the other hand, he was expressing his own beliefs, such as that people should be free to engage in habits or hobbies that may be harmful to their health (such as drinking or football, both very legal), then what you're really doing is calling him a "creep" merely because you disagree with his politics.  I could very easily call Hillary and Bill Clinton "creeps" on the same basis, and they won't show up to say hello for less than $100K, much less give a speech or pen an article for pay.  Although, that may have changed, since the Clinton Foundation mysteriously stopped getting donations once it was clear they no longer had political influence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 201 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...