>> ^shang:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^shang:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

there's those political correct people popping in...
stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.
I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.
You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.

You want to call it what it is? Fine...you're a bigot.

YAY
Now there ya go, Yes I am prejudice against certain things and of course I'm a bigot.
I wouldn't be human if I had certain preferences, if everyone thought alike and had the same morals and ethics we'd be sheep with no individualism which is what political correctness wants to remove from people is their individuality. George Carlin although a comedian was dead right 100% on that point.
And just as he said on stage, Of course I'm a bigot, I'm human. No phobias here other than spiders -grin-

Of course...those of us who object to your unreasonable hatred are only trying to stamp out individuality. And you object to -our- redefining words?


At least ours kept the word in somewhat similar realms. Not that I expect rationality from a homophobe or a bigot.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^shang:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^shang:
definitely wasn't "homophobic" <- the new political correct term
phobic/phobia is a fear of, such as I have arachnophobia, but even though I am anti-gay, I do not have homophobia.
political correctness wants to redefine words, such as trying to redefine phobia to also mean hate.
again I am arachnophobic but I do not hate spiders, I fear them.

"political correct movement should die in a fucking fire" - George Carlin

The term "homophobia" refers to anti-gay sentiment and you know it. Stop splitting hairs, homophobe.

there's those political correct people popping in...
stop using the wrong word, created by the p.c. movement.
I am no homophobe I do not fear, I am anti-gay but that's my life and my family I don't care what others do.
You should download some George Carlin albums and give a listen, hopefully it will reverse what the political correct brainwashing has done.

You want to call it what it is? Fine...you're a bigot.


YAY

Now there ya go, Yes I am prejudice against certain things and of course I'm a bigot.

I wouldn't be human if I had certain preferences, if everyone thought alike and had the same morals and ethics we'd be sheep with no individualism which is what political correctness wants to remove from people is their individuality. George Carlin although a comedian was dead right 100% on that point.

And just as he said on stage, Of course I'm a bigot, I'm human. No phobias here other than spiders -grin-

Anti-realism is not a term that is conventionally applied to language. You were employing a metaphor. That's fine; that's how all language works. There would be no words, and no dictionary to look them up in, if we didn't use metaphor.

This belief that a word can have only one narrow and arbitrary meaning, which its enforcers have memorised and to which they will allow no opposition, is dangerous and stifling to discourse. It's particularly bizarre in the context of this discussion since I'm sure, if we could be bothered to check, we would find many examples in dictionaries and other scholarly instruments of the term 'fascist' applied much more loosely than I've proposed here. It's often used, legitimately, as a simple synonym for 'bully'.

You'll notice that far from insisting on my own, I allow your meaning, and Webster's and mine all together. I only say that mine is better, being a pruned and perfected incarnation of its relatives. If we didn't prefer our own ideas to those of others there would be no point to independent thought at all.

I think you ought to read my posts more carefully and assume, for the sake of scientific inquiry, that I might be as smart as you are.>> ^Kofi:

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.
I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.
Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.

I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.

Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

FOR LIBERTY "Yes I am waiting fo reform whether it comes from liberty or progressive" same goes for the sift...

In fact, Downvoting is the highest form of sift-flattery.>> ^BoneRemake:

I dont like people posting stupid useless shit. Sure I might sound like I am presenting my values as a high standard than yours, thats not really the case, as I may post videos you do not like, but I encourage you to speak up like I have when such things occur. To stay silent does no one any good
"God bless you! I just downvoted your stuff! "
In reply to this comment by marinara:
cmon. don't like breasts, don't have to watch it

Before adding to the debate, I'd like to point out that @kevingrr has made, imo, the most pertinent commentary so far. Notably, that Hedges is intellectually dishonest (and that's a euphemism), and is simply piggy-backing on the success of thinkers such as Harris and Hitchens to sell a couple books, even if that means smearing them and the whole atheist/antitheist movement, grasping at strawmen and making indefensible claims... you know, what religious apologists usually do. (It's actually tempting to invoke * lies, considering how badly he misrepresents Harris, but I'll leave that to the OP to decide).

@dystopianfuturetoday

Of course you're not threatened by Hedges, as he has absolutely nothing to contribute. The so-called "New Atheists" (if you can call Epicurus and Paine "New") are fighting for change, progress, while the religious apologists and fundies are fighting either for the status quo or for regression*. Hedges is just propping himself above everyone else in an attempt to sell books and condescend.

_{(*by progress/regression, I'm speaking of moral, social and intellectual.)}

One thing needs to made clear about religion (the following is also addressed to you @SDGundamX): it is not the fundamentalists that are the problem, it is the fundamentals. And yes, I am not ashamed to admit that that is a quote borrowed from Sam Harris. As kevingrr points out, humanity has made immense moral progress over time, and what has been one of its biggest obstacle has been the fundamentals of religious ideologies, especially the desert monotheisms.

What makes religion religion? Supernatural truth claims. Take that away, and you have philosophy, history, poetry, law, etc... all things that are dependant on human thought and experience, and can be reshaped with experience, evidence, etc. But supernatural truth claims cannot be challenged, cannot be empirically experienced or disproved by anyone, and that is why they are such a powerful tool of manipulation, and why it is child abuse to indoctrinate kids with such beliefs at an age when they take everything their parents/authority figures say as truth (survival demands it). Monotheism is all the more dangerous because it provides an unchallengeable dictatorial authority to whomever wields it (versus polytheism's plurality), be they imams, rabbis, priests or simply bigoted parents.

Saying that we should focus on the bad results of fundamentalism and leave religion itself (and all other forms of superstitious belief) alone is like saying one should focus on the symptoms but ignore the disease. Sure, the symptoms need to be treated, but if we do not also attack the sickness that is causing them we are wasting our time.

I am not saying we shouldn't side with religious moderates to fight the symptoms. But it's not as believers that they should be sided with, but simply as fellow human beings fighting for human well-being and moral progress. If some want to delude themselves into thinking that their actions are driven by the will of an invisible sky-daddy instead of their own humanity and empathy, so be it (although it's pretty sad).

>> ^spoco2:

The video... is ok.
I just have a huge problem with Katherine Heigl and her hypocritical bullshit comments about the tv shows and films she works on that make her millions of dollars.
There's such a thing as professionalism, and she doesn't have it.
So... yeah, I will not endorse this video.
(Yes, I am well aware that me not upvoting this video here has a net impact of less than zero percent on... well, anything.)


Oh wow! I was so ready to pick holes in those articles... but no, she's a bellend! Damnit, i've always really liked her since Knocked Up, grrr

The video... is ok.

I just have a huge problem with Katherine Heigl and her hypocritical bullshit comments about the tv shows and films she works on that make her millions of dollars.

There's such a thing as professionalism, and she doesn't have it.

So... yeah, I will not endorse this video.

(Yes, I am well aware that me not upvoting this video here has a net impact of less than zero percent on... well, anything.)

Stalking a kitty cat seems counterproductive now, eh? *squishes with paw*

In reply to this comment by ant:
https://plus.google.com/104944603408436477439#104944603408436477439/p
osts

Hey, I thought Google doesn't let you use nicknames? Did they change that rule? Yes, I am stalking you.

https://plus.google.com/104944603408436477439#104944603408436477439/posts

Hey, I thought Google doesn't let you use nicknames? Did they change that rule? Yes, I am stalking you.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^ant:
yes I am deaf
Not completely deaf, I assume? I'd wonder why you watch so many videos, if so.


Correct. I wear a bone conduction analog hearing aid.

>> ^ant:

yes I am deaf

Not completely deaf, I assume? I'd wonder why you watch so many videos, if so.

Good thing I don't have an ear hole and my other one is tiny (born like that and yes I am deaf).

Let's see an earwig!

>> ^NetRunner:

What video are you people watching?
Obama says "traditionally what held this country together was this notion that if you work hard, if you're playing by the rules, if you're responsible ... you've got a chance to succeed. But right now people feel like the deck is stacked against them..."
So...he's saying that why people are upset right now is because people feel like that social contract "traditional notion" has broken down.
He's not saying "If you're poor, and don't have a job, blame yourself." That was Herman Cain.
Seriously, are people in such a rage against Obama that even when he says stuff you agree with, you have to pretend he said the opposite?


I absolutely see your point, I can see where my comment is misstating what I really intended to communicate. If I look at the Presidents comments differently, i.e. assuming the barest expectations of people and Americans, I understand his perspective and his comments better.

I suppose a better way to communicate my gripe is that he doesn't actually address the real issues. He's being "sympathetic" to the OWS protesters, but his statements do not give any weight to the actual issues. He doesn't acknowledge their grievances. (Maybe he can't, because OWS is such a mess anyway, regarding their fundamental message and goals. Still, "getting a job and getting ahead" is, and should not be, peoples highest goals in the United States.)

Every individual in the US is in a position to change the world for the better. Yes, I am an idealist.