China and the far east (and India, to an extent [I'm talking about Buddhism]) have it right
Theres a reason why you can't come up with a 'God Almighty' for the Chinese like you can with the Western World.
ITS CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE
Know why? Cause its futile. If God is truly almighty and powerful, why the fuck would he be as simple as two legs, two arms, human face and smiling? An almighty being takes an almighty shape, and no, making him a human thats really fucking tall doesn't count.
Instead, their religions concentrate more on the universe and life in general. But why? Most other religions concentrate on one single being and pleasing him, yet the Asians concentrate more on life in general, and not some mythical unicorn. They don't have one single being, and neither are they so closely chained to their damn religion like Christians and lolmuslims are. How the fuck did THEY strike Gold when it came to religion? Superior White Race my ass, I'd rather ponder and think, better myself and learn to live in Harmony with the world than to just worry about some 100 ft faggot trying to catch me jerking off just so he could send me to hell.
>>41
"dat beez racisms, dat beez scriminations" "lawl nazi hurp durp" are pretty much the default arguments of the Left these days, and the argument is reduced to those terms in direct proportion to how afraid they are of the truths under discussion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-11 19:09
>>42
Truths? Afraid? Knowledge and courage are what the left is made of. You think the fact that the colleges and universities are "hot beds of liberalism" because of some kind of conspiracy, when it's just because that's just where the smart people are. You somehow reverse the ends of the spectrum making those who resist progress and defend the status quo courageous, and those who fight for progress and face the world as it is, rather than as it was, cowardly. You mock human beings, dare invoke reason, and assert some greater knowledge and wisdom when, in fact, those who make posts like yours usually can't even get the hang of appropriate levels of intimacy in consanguineal relationships, and that pro wrestling is fake. "Hurp durp" indeed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-12 9:02
>>43
Why is it that university graduates generally shed their mushy headed utopian idealism after leaving?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-12 13:57
>>44
The answer lies in the way you framed your question. In using the word "generally" you have implied that a majority of university graduates change their views, and in characterizing all liberalism and progressive thought as "mushy headed utopian idealism" you have clearly illustrated the fact that your mind is more closed than open, and that your intellect, and/or integrity are lacking. A university environment, at least for a short time, demands an open mind, development of the intellect, and integrity to be successful, whereas our current political and economic systems thrive on ignorance and lies. Yet despite the apparent incongruity, secular(as distinguished from the scholarly) society continues to progress. Because most university graduates, even when thrust into a hostile environment, manage to maintain some integrity, remember their ideals, and work toward them. There is a big difference between believing in justice, wanting to feed starving people, care for sick people, and act responsibly with the environment, and "mushy headed utopian idealism".
>>45 A university environment, at least for a short time, demands an open mind, development of the intellect, and integrity to be successful,
WHOOHOO MOTHAFUCKSTAZ! DID YOU SEE THE TITS ON THAT CHI-OMEGA BITCH AT THE KEGGER LAST NIGHT? WE RAN A TRAIN ON HER ASS, WOOHOOHOOHYOOO!
In other words: cool story, bro.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 3:20
>>45
>There is a big difference between believing in justice, wanting to feed starving people, care for sick people, and act responsibly with the environment, and "mushy headed utopian idealism".
There is. Socialism does nothing to feed starving people, care for sick people or act responsibly with the environment. It is a ridiculous mushy headed utopian fantasy that achieves nothing and when people leave university and put their little dogmatic theories to the test they quickly discover that most are impractical and they will have to become far more moderate if they intend to make any real changes.
They may still value ending poverty and so forth, they just go about it in a more practical manner, ie. in a moderate cautious conservative methodical manner.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 3:24
>>45
>whereas our current political and economic systems thrive on ignorance and lies
Meanwhile in Venezuela Chavez fails to provide basic electricity and sanitation, obviously we need a political and economic system like there's since socialists are perfect human beings who are never ignorant and never lie.
>>48
So in response to my having written: There is a big difference between believing in justice, wanting to feed starving people, care for sick people, and act responsibly with the environment, and "mushy headed utopian idealism".
You write: There is. Socialism does nothing to feed starving people, care for sick people or act responsibly with the environment. It is a ridiculous mushy headed utopian fantasy that achieves nothing
You have proved that you are only functionally literate, and incapable of cogent argument. Here's a "pro tip": If a man can't say what he means, he will never be able to mean what he says. Socialism is an inevitable consequence of society, and even in the USA, it's our social/socialist endeavors that satisfy the basic needs of most of the many, many people that the "market" has little or no use for. As for the rest of your nonsense; more pathetic rationalization and hypocrisy.
>>49
A tangential reference and sarcasm is not an argument. I suggest that the next time you want to post, you wait 'till you have something intelligent to say. As it stands you sound like a pouty child.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 18:18
The reason college faggots don't support socialism after they graduate is because under socialism they wouldn't be able to make as much money.
That's THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY THEY GOT FOR PERFORMING AN EASY JOB THAT THEY WERE HIRED FOR BECAUSE THEY WENT THROUGH FOUR HARD YEARS OF COLLEGE THAT THEIR PARENTS PAID FOR.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-14 21:44
>>50
Wow, just wow. Didn't you get it? Let me break it down for you.
I accept your truism that there is a difference between pragmatic methods of ending poverty and mushy headed utopias, I just believe that socialism is the mushy headed utopia.
I accept your truism that corruption is present in our system, I just reject that being socialist somehow makes you immune to corruption or even less corrupt.
I don't know, there are a hell of a lot less homeless people in countries like Iceland, Norway, Finland, Australia, etc.
So it works some.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-16 1:42
>>53
There are also a lot less homeless people in Ireland, Denmark and Singapore, applying ockham's razor it seems that well developed democratic low population states have lower rates of poverty. Technically socialism is the public ownership of businesses anyway so any apparent benefits of welfare are not due to socialism.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-16 18:05
>>53,>>54
And what are the common traits of these societies?
The one that stands out immediately is demographic. They don't have significant numbers of niggers.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-16 18:10
There are plenty of niggers in Cuba but there are no hobos either.
Leave God alone. There's much better ways to evaluate a civilisation. Besides, the West has acheived great, great things (if via the exploitation of everyone else, but it's been worth it to my mind... Africa is actually worse *after* decolonisation)
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-03 4:36
>>67
Cause and effect. Whites exploited everyone because they could, not because they were the only ones willing to do so. They could because of their great achievements.
protip, buddy: You can't simply study statistics and figure out how people work. That's why socialism and communism are BULLSHIT. The idea sounds perfect on paper. Just let the government run everything so that no one starves and everything runs eficiently. What this approach leaves out is that power always breeds curruption, and that people are not gonna work their asses off if they get nothing more for their efforts.
Occasionally, we need to regulate, but you can't act mushy headed and expect people to suddenly act like carpenter ants. It just won't happen.
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-30 10:58
The worship of one-singular god is at it's root, the worship of the one singular individual. This is why the concept of individualism is so deeply rooted in Western Culture (Though often poorly executed).
Comparatively, Eastern religious systems focus on the entirety, the community or the whole. This is why culturally, the east focuses on the communistic.
One or the other- objectively- considering immorality and corruption is widespread in both societies isn't better or worse.
You can't simply study statistics and figure out how people work.
Who mentioned the study of statistics? power always breeds curruption
since you accept the use of absolute statements, here's one for you that I suspect that you will find as unbelievable as I find yours; I am incorruptible.
And nobody wants people to act like "carpenter ants". Except of course for villains.
>>73 >>74
Wow, what an inferior culture. No wonder they never progressed beyond hieroglyphs, discovered the new world or underwent a scientific and industrial revolution. I kind of understand Mao's murderous cultural revolution and the Japanese obsession with conquering them now.
>>75 discovered the new world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1421_Hypothesis Chinese may have landed and mapped out the western hemisphere before Columbus' voyage. This certainly is a possibility since they were seafaring people.
I hope you didn't come to that conclusion from just reading those two sources. If so, that's woefully ignorant of you. And I can't believe you see Mao's murderous cultural revolution as justified! He killed over 70 million of his people!
Name:
Anonymous2009-12-31 18:29
>>76 And I can't believe you see Mao's murderous cultural revolution as justified! He killed over 70 million of his people!
For the record nowhere near 70 million people were killed during the cultural revolution, and the 70 million figure is the most liberal estimate for the entire revolution from '49 onward, the greatest loss of life occurring during the "great leap forward". In his defense, Mao almost singlehandedly forged China into the modern western style nation that is about to achieve global preeminence.
>>77
Japan was able to do the same without anywhere near as much bloodshed. And they were the only nation to suffer not one, but two nuclear bombings. China could have very well developed into a modern western style nation without the death and tyranny that Mao brought. There's no justification for it.