Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:00pm:



Entirely correct imo, soren.

It is clear that distortions and omissions [of facts] in ABC news and current affairs presentations, can only protect the guilty, and shield the guilty, from scrutiny.

And that is what the leftists and humanists directing the presentation of news and current affairs at the ABC are guilty of.

Preventing real, and open, and informed, community debate on 'contentious' issues.

Particularly, the issue of how ISLAM/moslems are 'interfacing' with Western culture.




AND THE SAME 'ENVIRONMENT' IS SEEN ON MANY ABC [online] PUBLIC FORUMS...
Real debate on many ABC public [online] forums are 'hamstrung', when those who posit a different worldview are nearly always gagged.
My experience is that on ABC public [online] forums, only a worldview which is self-effacing [and critical of Western culture] and which moslem-tolerant, and anti-Israel is welcome.

Only those persons who expresses an opinion which is PC, and non-critical of ISLAM, need to bother to express an opinion on ABC forums.


I will be watching "Q&A Stopping the boats",

This Thur, 9.00 pm

Will anyone in that forum, address the threat which ISLAMIC culture poses to Australia, and all non-moslems.

Why won't ABC news agencies, confront what ISLAMIC religious doctrines clearly promote [i.e. a culture of supremacism, deception, violence against local infidels, to further ISLAM's influence locally] ???

Soren wrote on May 25^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:



What really appals me about people today, people who are referred to as 'liberals' [<---- a good example of the absolute perversion of a words' true meaning]...is the intellectual oppression which 'liberals' will engage in, to secure a 'debating ' 'high ground', on any particular issue.

I mean, isn't FREE AND OPEN DEBATE, meant to be, intended to be, a contest of ideas ???

Yet [supposed] liberals today, will always try to secure a 'high ground' in any debate, NOT IN REASONED DEBATE,
but by seeking to gag the expression of any opposing argument.

The majority of 'liberals' and leftists today, are not willing TO DEBATE, others in intellectual argument.

The majority of 'liberals' today seem wholly unwilling to listen to any intellectual argument, which does not align with their own POV.

But rather, the primary aim, the sole aim, of leftists and humanists [within any supposed 'debate'] is to remove anyone from the debate, who does not share their own POV.

That is not debate.

And that form of 'debate', has no intellectual merit, at all.


That form of 'debate' is merely, a form of applied intellectual 'thuggery'.

And such conduct fosters the intellectual and political 'environment' from which actual, worldly tyrants can spring up.




In the world of 'liberals', and political argument today, it is winning the 'prize' [of political power] which is everything.

And the position of 1/ reason, 2/ integrity, and 3/ moral values, count for nothing.




Dictionary;
liberal = =
1 respectful and accepting of behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. favourable to individual rights and freedoms. Theology regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
3 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.
4 (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed; not strictly literal.
5 given, used, or giving in generous amounts.


Dictionary;
merit = = excellence; worth.

Yadda wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:52am:



How does this differ from conservatives in debate, or any other group for that matter?
Every group will push their barrow of what they consider right. This is especially the case when politics is involved. Politics is about winning, it's about crushing your enemy and rubbing their nose in the dirt, not debating, not discussing, not making concessions. You're no different with your religious talk: you want to severely punish those who you believe are wrong (moreso than most on this forum, which is not unusual for religious types).

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 3:14pm:


What is your counter-argument? It can't be unconvincing if you don't say why it isn't.

You say that every side in a political debate only wants to crush its opponets and grind their noses in the dirt.
You are saying this in a political debate.
By your own reckoning, then, your aim is to crush Yadda and grind his nose in the dirt.
Your effort is feeble for that purpose.
Unless, of course you are NOT debating Yadda.
But what are you doing posting in a political debate.
Just to grind your nose into it: why do I need to spell out your own theory to you?

At this point I should say namaste
but
I won't.
So
there.


nameste

Yadda is right. All liberals, athiests and humanists are wrong. However, he is also wrong because Yadda is not right either.

We are all wrong.

Can you be wrong and right at the same time?

I never studied analytic philosophy, but it would seem that you can.

As a continental man, I always thought that we are always wrong, but in this case Yadda could not be right about the atheists, liberals and humanists being wrong, but be wrong too.

As you can see, it is very hard to be right.

Yadda is righteous, by the way, which is not the same as being right. That's something else entirely.

That's right. What to do?