On December 25th, a Savior was born. He revealed eternal Truth, bringing Joy to millions. He astonished the world with His command over Nature. He changed history forever.
And on the inside:
Happy Birthday, Sir Isaac Newton. December 25, 1642 - March 20, 1726
Card-maker John Powers, an Objectivist graphic designer, reckons we should celebrate reason and science on December 25th, instead of the same old bearded mystic!
I like to send Christmas cards, but as an atheist, I have had to limit
myself to the hundreds of bland cards that neutrally say "Happy Holidays." I
decided that if it's okay for (almost) everyone else to stamp, seal, and
deliver their philosophy to me every Christmas, I'll do just the same.
Sir Isaac Newton's ideas helped to rescue mankind from drudgery and propel
it into the space age. I am a lover of reason, and I love it unashamedly,
and I want my friends to know it too. They will this Christmas. Yours can,
too.
Buy them here. [Hat tip Noodle Food]
92 comments:
You sure they got that right? I looked up Isaac Newton on Wikipedia and they say he was born on the 25th under the old style dates, but with the new style his birthday is the 4th of January.
*rolls eyes*
I love it, but I wish I knew more people who gave a damn about this stuff (apart from Christian friends who will quite simply be offended) rather than the indifferent, who will probably also roll their eyes!
Another bit of pro-faggot propaganda from the Libz. How unsurprising. What have you got ready for Eid?
Such a lovely turn of phrase, has Red! :)
Whats santa claus got to do with christianity? Isn't he all about coke?
"Such a lovely turn of phrase, has Red! :)"
Well for fucks sake. Haven't you lot of smug sanctimonious simpering panty waisted queers got something better to do than pick on Christians from dawn till dusk??
Why don't you bash the Muslims a bit. Too yellow right?
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18947592&postID=4067549350728935117&isPopup=true
Did that link work? Its meant to connect to the New Zeal discussion on Uniting the Right.
Except the Libs aren't right. Out there somewhere in some unknown spacial dimension, they profess to hate what they perceive as the right with the same intensity as the left. So in actuality, the discussion is fucked right from the start.
Well for fucks sake. Haven't you lot of smug sanctimonious simpering panty waisted queers got something better to do than pick on Christians from dawn till dusk??
Yeah Red - it's picking on that Jew John Key.
You must have noticed that my man ;-)
You do realise that Sir Isaac Newton was a Christian theologian who I understand wrote more on theology than he did on physics?
Manners to make a mum proud.
Let's see: I'm not smug, hate sanctimony and wouldn't waste my time simpering when blessed with such a loud voice for a woman.
Panty-waisted and queer? Nah, much too high and not my wiring, respectively.
And do nothing better but bellyache about Christians all day? Well that would be rather silly seeing as I'm no atheist. Truth is I couldn't give a bugger who is and isn't as long as they mind their business.
So what would you have us do? Join in the praise for Key & Co on account of the fact they're not Clark & Co, even though they appear to not want to change much?
Now that would just be silly.
And for yellow, who's yellow? Me or the Muslims you seem to want me "to bash"?
The only fucked-up idea is your refusal to acknowledge that the one-dimensional political line is obsolete, relative to the simple political quiz as featured on libertarian sites.
And take your homophobic glasses off. They're rather dirty.
Yes, Mr Dennis, I did know.
But he's not remembered as a theologian, is he -- and with good reason; he's remembered (with very good reason) as the author of the 'Principia,'
What he wrote on theology is essentially worthless (much like Red's contributions). Whereas what he wrote on physics was in every important way one of the glories of the Enlightenment.
THAT is his greatest achievement.
I consider it appropriate to observe Newton's birthday on the old style date, because the alternative has "Christ" in the name.
I would happily bash the Muslims, although I'm not bashing Christians with my card (although it would be perfectly justified). Funny how most people see this card as anti-Christian, by virtue of it positively promoting secular values. The evangelicals use the same logic to explain why, for instance, unmarried, cohabiting couples threaten traditional nuclear families.
One more thing. I'm aware of Newton's shortcomings in the religion department. His scientific achievements, and his lucid explanation of the correct process for gaining true scientific knowledge is valuable enough to admire apart from his eschatological ramblings. Newton did more for me, and affected my life more profoundly, than all the priests, shamans, and hippie-freak doomsday prophets of history.
And a Merry Newtonmas to you all.
"And take your homophobic glasses off."
Oh gawd. If you were as rational as you think you are, you wouldn't stoop to using made up words like "homophobic". ...and what makes you think I fear faggots anyway??
Your use of that word suggests to me that your a mindless automaton unable to think for yourself and correspondingly, most likely a sappy Ponsonby latte drinking liberal who thinks its the epitome of social status to be seen hob knobbing with dykes and faggots.
Frightened of them? Naah, I just don't like losers who endlessly bash Christianity at the same time as they profess tolerance. I don't like hypocrites who profess to care for freedom of expression but dream up words like "homophobic" and apply them to people who don't agree with them. I don't like pretenders who claim to care about free speech but seek the introduction of laws about what can be said and written that will cause people who don't comply to be jailed. I don't like people who profess to care about liberty at the same time as they act as a front group for intolerant fascists. If that's really what homophobic means then yeah, I'm as guilty as sin.
..and fuck your silly little quiz too with its contrived questions. ..and you reckon religionists lack objectivity.
Must have been something I said.
Sus, don't debate with Red -you are above debating with the likes of him.
"Sus, don't debate with Red -you are above debating with the likes of him."
Spoken like a true leftist elitist. What the fuck are intolerant PC idiots like you doing professing to have the market cornered on liberty? No wonder when it comes to political achievement, you could write about all of the successes of the NZ Libs on a postage stamp. Incoherent inarticulate politically confused poseurs. You might not like my language you simpering little fag, but at least I know what direction to fire my bullets in.
"Must have been something I said"
It was actually. I'm sick of your bloody endless attacks on Christianity. If you had half a brain you'd be recognising them as allies, not alientating them with your weak arsed Stalinist PC crap.
My "endless attacks on Christianity"?
Find one. Do it now; you've obviously nothing better to do. And when you can't, I'll expect a polite apology - as a real bloke would offer.
If you're a Christian Redbaiter, Christ himself must be shaking his head.
Redbaiter, if you're so cheesed off about what Sus/PC/me etc say, why are you still here? You seem to be here to simply start a fight.
NOTE: no unsupported personal attacks here. And you...?
"Find one."
Your sniggering on this issue is enough. BTW, shouldn't you be doing as Callum instructs?
"If you're a Christian Redbaiter, Christ himself must be shaking his head."
I'm not you simpleton fag. If you can't deduce something as simple as that then stay out of the argument. Do as Callum has directed. As a favour to yourself.
Red, you have two choices: either sharpen up or fuck off.
If you want to carry on being a clown, you can do it on somebody else's dime.
Guess you made your choice. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
What did he say, PC? You don't have to show it here; an email would be perfectly fine.
Sticks & stones, Red.
Normally couldn't be bothered going on with something this silly, but you made a claim & I want an answer.
You made the point that I made "endless attacks on Christianity". When I challenged you to produce one - just one - from any source, your only answer was "your sniggering on this issue is enough".
So find a "snigger" then, you sad little man, or otherwise apologise like the human being you're supposed to be.
I don't like liars. Put up or man up.
LOL - potty mouth springs to the defence of christians. Bet they're pleased. I'm sure, in the meantime, christians have mostly rolled their eyes and turned their cheeks...
Yes, Sus, he is a sad little man, but if you want a reply he'll need to email it, because he does't have posting privileges here any more.
But we know very well what a reply would have said, don't we.
Good old Red. He did have a point about homophobia though - don't think he's scared, just disturbed by them, no doubt something to do with teh commies.
Funny how most people see this card as anti-Christian, by virtue of it positively promoting secular values.
I agree John (if you haven't run for the hills, never to return).
I think Redbaiter should acquaint himself with the below clip, and try to understand it - I know nothing about the announcer, other than if he isn't a Libertarian openly yet, he'll be out of the closet soon:
Prop 8.
Love these cards Peter.
Oh, and Redbaiter. I'm not part of the big homo conspiracy, I'm straight. And I want to be a free man.
eeeeewwwww pete got infected by the master baiter virus.
I understand completely the ban but there is occasional entertainment value reading the frothing at the mouth. i dont bother reading dpf comment threads any more so i have missed that.
hilarious attacking the libz like that.
eeeeewwwww pete got infected by the master baiter virus.
I understand completely the ban but there is occasional entertainment value reading the frothing at the mouth. i dont bother reading dpf comment threads any more so i have missed that.
hilarious attacking the libz like that.
Redbait's been put back into his closet.
LGM
"Yes, Sus, he is a sad little man,"
Fuck me, if I looked as sad as you do in that damn avatar, I'd be offing myself at the first opportunity.
For what it's worth, I agree with Redbaiter about the use of the ridiculous word 'homophobic' to describe people who disapprove of homosexuals.
Anti homosexuals--fine.
PC said...
On December 25th, a Savior was born. He revealed eternal Truth, bringing Joy to millions. He astonished the world with His command over Nature. He changed history forever.
PC, you should have some perspective in life mate?
You know that us atheists (including yourself) enjoy Christmas carols (I know that you don't even participate, but you listen to the singing all the time at the Castle annual carols singings), and you do argue here for the sake of being an atheist.
How about having some fun for the sake of it as you usually do at your own Castle christmas carols, and that is , just be there to enjoy the occasion not because of the belief in Jesus but in the spirit of traditions.
I am having a christmas carol singings & party on the 20th, December, starting at 8pm onwards (till dawn). My Tongan group will be there in full force. Hateni (Hayden) the piano player, 'Ofa, Papa, Ibrahim (the tenors) and others will be there to sing along christmas carols.
You are all invited, not because we are religious, but because it is the traditions (europeans).
Mate, without traditions, you libertarianzs have no history or past traditions to enjoy.
Sus, are you available? We need a soprano singer and I know that you have a good voice. My piano player can play any song, if requested.
Oh, Come All Ye Faithful
Fuck being christian bashing. Have some enjoy man? I am atheist, but man have some enjoy in life, whatever that may be. It doesn't have to be objectivism or philoshophical argument, but just enjoy man?
All welcome to Ponsonby, chrismast carols on the eve of 20th, December. My Tongan boys will be there in full-force, plus the piano player, entertaining all.
To all the libertarianz out there who can't sing (I've never met any libertarianz who can sing except Susan Ryder), here is an Ukulele christmas song for you to listen to and ponder about happiness in life (note , you don't have to be christian to enjoy the song, the tune is a beautiful work of art and I believe that Ayn Rand loves art - this piece is a brilliant piece of art in the musical sense).
Angels We Have Heard on High (Ukulele)
Here is a more funkier one:
Angels We Have Heard on High (choir group singing)
Merry Christmas to all, and please enjoy Christmas , and forget about objectivism, it is christmas time.
Hi FF, sounds great. I'm not leaving town till Xmas Eve, so would love to come.
You do me way too much credit - no 'soprano' - far from it - but I can join in the chorus & stay in tune most of the time! Look forward to it.
'Homophobic', KG? Yes, probably not the best word, granted ... but you know that I have no time for collectivists -- and blue ones piss me off just as much as red ones or green ones.
Cheers.
Hm......
Eternal truth? It was good enough to send rockets to the moon but it was superceded by Einstein's theories so can't really be called eternal.
Savior???? That sounds batty.
"but you know that I have no time for collectivists -- "
"homophobic" is a collectivist response to anything that challenges homosexual activism.
Look, I am not anti homosexual. I once spent a day or so in hospital recovering from a beating I suffered after I rescued a queer friend from a gang of thugs in a nameless little NZ country town. (just me and the queer against about six, and the queer wasn't much help. For my temerity in going against the local anti-queer tide, I was punished by receiving the greater beating.)
What I am against is the idea that is apparently ascendant amongst NZ Libertarians that liberty revolves around the queer activist political agenda and its accompanying aversion to Christians, who because they often don't buy into that agenda, are portrayed as a threat to freedom.
I say this is the about face of how it should be. If liberty was truly the intent of the Libs, they would be reaching out to the Christians and disavowing the politically correct anti-freedom thinking that is behind the homosexual agenda. I say that as a strategy to achieve freedom, by embracing and promoting the thuggery and anti freedom of expression ideas of the militant homosexual movement, the Libs are making a major tactical mistake.
In the limited time and space I have here ( I don't even know if Mr. Cresswell with allow this to stand) I can't say as much as I would like, but it is important that readers observe the above exchange and reflect that it demonstrates that the NZ Libertarians have their own problems with political correctness, and those problems stem from the unnecessary priority they give to the homosexual political agenda, in itself a threat to individual liberty.
I don't like using the words I used above, but on a blog that calls itself "Not PC", and professes to be concerned with the pursuit of individual liberty, should I be banned for using them, and if so, how then do the Libertarians really differ from any other group that seeks to control thought and speech?? So called Libertarians should think about that contradiction.
Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There's not one use of the word homosexual.
You were asked to leave, Mr Baiter, because you offer nothing but unsubsantiated abuse.
If that's all you can offer, then you're not welcome. If that's all you're able to do, then go and do it on your own dime.
And if you don't like that, then sod off.
And just for the record, there's actually no way to ban anyone from this blog (my software doesn't allow it) and only three people have been asked to leave (two of whom did) and one invited to sod off (and he did). And for that, and for having standards, I make no apology, and don't have to.
Nothing in the principle of free speech requires that I provide idiots with a microphone.
Peter, you said: "Eternal truth? It was good enough to send rockets to the moon but it was superseded by Einstein's theories so can't really be called eternal."
Newton's science wasn't so much superseded by Einstein's theories as refined by them.
For most physics on the level defined and investigated by Newton, everything he discovered still holds.
Because once you discover something to be true, then as long as you remain aware of the context of your knowledge, then what you know really is eternally true.
Redbait
What a load of disengenous self-justification and bullshit you spout. It is clear you are a liar.
1/. On this string (topic:- Christmas cards) it was YOU who started raving about homosexuals. You referred to homosexuals as "faggots", "painty-waisted queers" and so forth.
2/. The terms you used were intended to belittle, insult and smear Libertarians.
3/. You have not provided ANY substantive argument to back up your ad hominem nonsense.
4/. When you were challenged to back up your epithets and wild assertions with some fact you failed. Your response was more of the same hollow rubbish you've become known for- name calling, smearing, cussing and fibbing.
5/. When you were requested by the blog owner to sharpen up your behaviour, you refused. He is well within his rights to eject you from here. Your reponse to his request demonstrates clearly your utter ignorance of the principles of Libertarianism.
Some free advice: go study up on what Individual Rights are. Who knows, you may come to understand that one of them addresses property. Apply that to the NPC blog. You're a guest here, not an owner.
Given your abuse of the priviledge of commenting here, is it any surprise PC chopped you off? You need to learn that in order to debate ideas you need to do just that- debate the ideas. That requires consideration of those ideas and it requires consideration of fact. It requires provision of evidence of reality and/or provision of proofs when challenged. It requires you to admit when you are wrong (as you should on this occasion) and you should admit when you do not know about a topic (which is certainly the case when it comes to Libertarian ideology).
What debating does not require of you is repetition of ad hominem and baseless assertion. It certainly does not require your telling of lies as a misguided way of self-justification. You've deluded yourself for long enough. People know what you are. It's plain in your writing. You are not fooling anyone save yourself.
Conclusion: As PC pointed out, you need to sharpen up your act. You need to do better.
LGM
Thank you for that, Red.
I retract the comment. To be honest, I actually deleted that (homophobic) line initially ... but you succeeded in pissing me off so much, I thought 'fuck it' and put it back in to cheese you off. (It worked!).
A couple of points:
1. There is no homosexual agenda within the Libertarianz (party) or any of the individual libs of my acquaintance; nor is there any anti-Christian/religion agenda within the party, per se. Some, perhaps many libertarians may have their own personal anti-religious beliefs, but I reiterate they are "personal". I have made the point that I, myself, am not an atheist, but that's as much as I choose to disclose publicly.
2. This is Peter's blog, not the Libertarianz website. He is an Objectivist, so readers can expect an Objectivist perspective. Being a property rights advocate, he is within his rights to accept/reject any subsequent comment. That is not contrary to respect for free speech -- more a case of my house, my rules.
3. I have read the DOI; in fact I've sat in the very room in which it was signed. Its architect, Jefferson, is one of my heroes. I don't say that lightly.
One thing that attracted me to this party was its opposition to silliness espoused by outfits like gay/women's/Maori "rights" activists, etc.
I/we have no time for the latter, a viewpoint you obviously share.
Cheers.
Mr. Cresswell, I doubt that either you or I have the time to spend taking this much further, but you should note that my first response to your warning (which if you look at the posting times I did not even have the time to react to) was to ask you to be more precise in your criticism, which at that time was "acting like a clown".
This of course is a euphemism for "offending homosexuals by using words and phrases that are unacceptable", and all I ask is that you consider this in the context I ask- can you be fully committed to liberty when you let yourself be influenced by the same kind of codes that in other places you would criticise as being anti-freedom of expression??
You need to cut the umbilical with the militant homosexuals, unite with the Christians, recognise the collectivist left as the real enemy and conduct your war from this perspective. I don't say what I do to insult anyone really, but rather to express my concern for the Libertarian movement, and my ambition for it to be successful.
You need to cut the umbilical with the militant homosexuals, unite with the Christians, recognise the collectivist left as the real enemy and conduct your war from this perspective.
Christians! Mystical clap trap RB. They/you have handed over their freedom to a mystical Other and know only, therefore, the freedom of the slave.
And look at how you couch all your attacks: via collectives - Christians, homosexuals, etc, etc.
Freedom can only come from the enshrining of the individual, and based on the non-initiation of force. Why do you want the Libertarianz to fare well? You just want me to cast off a government so I can then be yoked to your idiot God.
Don't think so.
All collectivists are the enemy, particularly those who have tossed away a reasoned living, for one chained to 'sacred texts', and then would have me chained to them also. As Voltaire said, those who believe in absurdities (Christianity, Islam, Yogi Bear) are capable always of atrocities (see history).
SUS. I was once hired by a Canadian company to troubleshoot a four hundred million dollar project that had become bogged down. Among other things, I noticed that every progress meeting was dominated by the company's Quality Control division, a sector that really had no business being involved to the extent they were in this particular project.
Once I freed the project from the grip of these officious clowns (who were really only pursuing their own self serving inter-company political agenda) I was able to move things forward.
My plans were successful, because as an outsider, I was able to perceive the problem from a much more objective viewpoint than the company's regular management. They were too submerged in the bullshit to recognise it.
I tell this story because I think it parallels very well the Libertarians over concern with homosexual issues, which is a drag on the progress of the movement in much the same way as the QC guys were above. Worse than that. With its associated disdain for Christianity, and the bitter misrepresentation that involves, it actually drives the movement backwards.
Don't say it isn't so. In almost every discussion I have ever had with today's current crop of Libertarians, homosexual concerns are almost always the first issue they want to talk about.
Then you're talking to the wrong Libertarians.
I stood for the Libertarianz in the election this year, number 33 on the list, and the very first time I've ever heard of the big homosexual conspiracy is here, now, on this thread. And even so, I don't care if 'they' have an agenda, in a Libertarian society, they could not force it on me: that's the beauty of such a society.
We just want 'more freedom, less government'. Christians only want the second part of that, they're not interested in the first.
Red, my last word .. I can only second Mark's post (12.21pm) re no homosexual, or other, agenda.
I've been associated with this party for, oh I don't know, ten yrs or so and never, not once, has anybody ever raised the issue. Ever, hence the last line of my last post.
I can only deduce that the punters you've struck either have their own agenda, or don't have much of a clue re libertarianism.
Which is, as Mark says, *only* about more freedom and less govt.
And now it really is good night from me ...
"I stood for the Libertarianz in the election this year, number 33 on the list"
You failed, as you did the election before that and the election before that and the election before that and the election before that.
..and you're apparently not the least shamed by that failure. Even as the country sinks ever deeper into the totalitarian mire.
What's that quote about the lessons of the past, or the one about the definition of insanity??
Actually, the only person here who's obsessed with a "homosexual agenda" is Mr Baiter.
You may deduce from that what you wish.
You may also deduce what you wish from his attention-seeking grandstanding -- showboating that bears no relevance whatsoever to the post in question. But what I've deduced is that Mr Baiter offers no value in being here.
What I "need" to do is up to me. And what I'm going to do is affirm the man's ban from this blog.There are more important things to do than debate with such an obvious moron.
And what I'm going to do is affirm the man's ban from this blog.
OK. Fair enough. I tried.
Newton's science wasn't so much superseded by Einstein's theories as refined by them.
For most physics on the level defined and investigated by Newton, everything he discovered still holds.
Because once you discover something to be true, then as long as you remain aware of the context of your knowledge, then what you know really is eternally true.
Fair enough, although personally I'd take "eternal truth" to mean something true in any context rather than always true in particular contexts.
Homosexual agenda? what homosexual agenda?!?
If there was one I am sure I would have heard of it...(and have made some helpful suggestions! ha ha!)
Redbaiter, I have no time for Christianity - as far as I am concerned it is what I term 'Medieval Witchcraft'...(so sue me in the World Court)
This is a very interesting discussion to read, as a Christian!
I'll just respond to Mark Hubbard's point here:
"We just want 'more freedom, less government'. Christians only want the second part of that, they're not interested in the first."
As a Christian, I am in favour of both. Christianity is grounded in free choice, right back to the Garden of Eden. In order to freely choose something, you must have the option to freely choose something else. Therefore you must allow people to both freely choose to be Christian, and freely choose to disagree. Freedom is fundamental to Christianity, and it is no surprise that the founders of America (which with all its faults we can accept as the best example of a libertarian country) were Christian. Freedom of religion is a concept that originated in the once-Christian West.
This is in stark contrast to Islam, which requires people living in Islamic countries to convert, pay extra taxes, or die.
Christians on the whole, including myself, are in favour of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Now we believe that homosexuality is immoral. But that doesn't mean we are going to kill anyone for doing it (like the Moslems would)- rather we want to maintain our freedom of speech, so we can state that we believe homosexuality is wrong without being slammed with "hate speech" legislation or anything like that. And other people are entitled to different opinions, and entitled to voice those opinions too.
On the whole we are on the same page as the Libertarianz. Sure we disagree on some things - it's a free world. But Red is correct that we can be useful allies. Who was saying get rid of the ETS this year? Libz, Act, the Family Party and the Kiwi Party - the libertarians and the Christians in other words. Who was proposing to ditch the nanny-state smacking law? The same four parties. Who wants to put parents in charge of education rather than the state? Libz, Act and Family.
I stood for the Family Party this year. In debates I found that the Act candidate (I was never up against a Libertarianz one) generally agreed with virtually everything I said - in one case they stated to the hall that they agreed with everything in my 5min opening spiel.
As a Christian, I am strongly in favour of personal freedom and personal responsibility.
Isaac Newton was a Christian who like us was a lover of reason and saw no incompatibility with the concept of faith and rationality.
"We just want 'more freedom, less government'. Christians only want the second part of that, they're not interested in the first."
In addition to the atheists using a Christian to object to the Christianity within Christmas we now have ignorance, strawmen and stereotypes to add to the misinformation in this thread.
Christianity and libertarianism's consistent outworkings are virtually identical. Yes some Christians are confused that this is the correct position they should take but likewise, so are some athiests - socialists anyone?
Mr Dennis said:
As a Christian, I am in favour of both. Christianity is grounded in free choice, right back to the Garden of Eden.
And what was the choice: do as God says, which was not to seek knowledge, not to question, not to live 'your' life, but be a dumb arse and a dullard all your life, or - and I love this bit - suffer eternal damnation.
Oh yeah, free choice, right oh.
And now lets come forward two thousand years - after how many hundreds of millions of murders through the Crusades down to the Troubles? As I've said on SOLO, I'm ex - thank Christ :)I can say ex - Exclusive Brethren. Thank the big Yogi, but my parents had an intellectually handicapped child, one of my sisters, who according to the Exclusives was the work of the Devil, so my family was caste out when I was four years old. Through my life, that will be the biggest break I ever got. My parents have not been allowed to see their parents, or siblings since that day, I have never seen them either. I can cite you split families and suicides to the end of this day, and again tomorrow, and the next day. That cult remains living in seclusion and slavery.
You will say they are evil, they don't understand Christ, but they're just following the Bible, the same as you are. As with every Christian, or every follower of every creed that needs the 'leap of faith', they have switched off their minds. So your admonition of the evil Moslems over the Christians is pretty bitter pill for me to swallow. I know the Truth, the facts of reality.
And anyway, this argument always ends at this point, this particular point: you have handed responsibility for your life over to a mystical Other. Your life is just a creed, handed down and interpreted over two thousand years now. It is irrational, and cruel. Always cruel, for it does not allow you to live your life, take responsibility, as a free man. You must always bow your head, prostrate your life and your loved ones, to a Fiction, the only other choice being damnation.
Pleeease ... Christians, and free men/women, have nothing in common. My Voltaire quote above states my case.
Except one thing, in my Libertarian ideal, you are free to choose as you wish, worship whatever nonsense you want. In a Christian theocracy, this would never be the case. Can I prove it? Let's discuss abortion ...
Mark:
I am sorry to hear that your past experiences with one cult have turned you off Christians as a whole. You are perfectly entitled to your view that there is no God, as we are entitled to ours.
The point I am making is that politically we are generally working in the same direction, and pragmatically would be able to make a lot more progress if we cooperated on those issues we agree on rather than bickering because either of us holds presuppositions about the other based on our understanding of their beliefs.
"Pleeease ... Christians, and free men/women, have nothing in common."
We could do that - and let the socialists continue to run the country. It's your choice. I'd prefer to cooperate, much as I disagree with you on some issues, to counter socialism.
"In a Christian theocracy, this would never be the case."
Who on earth is suggesting a theocracy?
So what's out of curiosity, what's stopping you guys (the FP) from just merging with ACT, if you're so incredibly similar?
The Family Party disagrees with Act on income splitting, abortion and various issues like that. I cannot see a merger ever possible. I am arguing not that we are identical, but that we share a lot of common ground and should be cooperating on those areas we agree on, rather than pushing each other away for religious reasons.
should be cooperating on those areas we agree on, rather than pushing each other away for religious reasons.
Shouldn't be *too* hard to keep religion out of it then...'course you guys need a some seats first...
Certainly we need to get some seats. There's another election in 3 years.
Mr Dennis
Let's examine an issue. How about abortion? That'll do for a start.
Your party does not agree with the position that a woman should be able to acquire an abortion should she so wish. That is, you demand that a pregnant woman must surrender her ownership of her body to your authority. Thus, in the case of a pregnant woman, there is NO free choice allowed by you WHATSOEVER. The woman MUST sacrifice herself in favour of compliance with your values, superstitions and orders. Her body is yours to dispose of as you see fit. She is merely a slave to your ideology.
It is clear that you are exactly the same as any other corrupt collectivist. Free choice is not something you consistently support at all. For you "free choice" is subject to all sorts of restrictions determined by a superstitious belief in supernatural spirit monster ghost in the dark thingamaboobs.
Libertarianz share nothing of this lunacy or its attendant anti-freedom mentality.
Need we go further with this?
LGM
"Thus, in the case of a pregnant woman, there is NO free choice allowed by you WHATSOEVER."
What about the free choice of the fetus? Oh, we have to assume that the fetus, as it is not yet born, has no "choice", otherwise known as rights.
See, that's why you won't convince Mr D, and why he won't convince you.
I am "pro" abortion, by the way, even though I think it abhorant.
Clunking Fist is right, the issue comes back to whether the child is human and entitled to their own free will. It has nothing to do with the mother's right to freedom of choice, because we aren't dealing with the mother's body - we are dealing with another individual.
If you want to discuss it further, I have outlined my views on this here:
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/the-morality-of-abortion/
Also check out Libertarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/
Clunking Fist
The point is that Mr Dennis is not really pro-freedom at all. It's old style authoritarian colectivism with his outfit. Worse is that this is "justified" on the basis of a collection of myths and fairy tales. These guys say that free will and free choice are OK right up until anyone disagrees with their system of values and ideas. Then out comes the regulation, orders, coercion etc. Now why would you want to associate with a system like that? These guys can't be reasoned with. They do not uphold Libertarian values at all.
LGM
"These guys say that free will and free choice are OK right up until anyone disagrees with their system of values and ideas."
You're an arrogant knuckle dragging moron, and in compliance with my ban here, I say why at the link below-
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/crusaderrabbit/1700469443650708367/?a=25548
LGM, I know Mr D is not pro-choice, I'm merely pointing out that his (valid) views and your (equally valid views) are not reconciling.
Thus I advocate a pragmatism that is found with neither libertarians or conservatives.
The closest home for my vote was therefore ACT. Would I trust them after 3 terms in power? Probably not, but by then maybe there will be a new force in politics that has a reasonable mix of freedom and pragmatic collectivism that I can live with.
Clunking Fist
If you can understand that Mr D is not a consistant supporter of individual freedom, then you should be able to understand that Libertarianz (who are) fundamentally have little in common with him or his organisation. For Libertarianz to support that outfit would be for them to abandon principle. It would be immoral. Working to promote the antithesis of your values and goals is not a sound means of attaining your values and goals.
When you say you are an advocate of "pragmatism" what you are really saying is that you advocate acting in an unprincipled manner. You'll back whatever seems convenient at the time regardless of what the ideas are, where they come from, what they mean, how they'll be applied and where they will lead. That's not a very good thing to do. Inevitably you'll be disappointed as, apart from anything else, you'll have sacrficed your own integrity and abused your own intelligence for nothing. Working to promote the antithesis of your values and goals is not a sound means of attaining your values and goals.
LGM
LGM:
I am not arguing that we agree on everything - of course we don't. If we did I'd have been standing for Libertarianz last election, not the Family Party. What I am saying is that there are many issues we do agree on and can work together to achieve, and others we can agree to disagree on. If you think I'm inconsistent that is fine with me. I think you're inconsistent thinking it is ok to abort a child but not ok to kill them after they are born.
The fact we each think the other is inconsistent simply means we agree on some issues and disagree on others. We can therefore cooperate to promote the issues we agree on.
Unfortunately instead of cooperation we get people such as Mark saying here "Pleeease ... Christians, and free men/women, have nothing in common.". It is that mindset I am arguing against here.
Bear in mind that Libz gained only 0.05% of the vote last election. The Family Party gained only 0.35%. Neither of us is in parliament. However good either of our ideas are there is no way we can put them into place alone, we will each need to cooperate with others on an issue-by-issue basis if we want to have an influence.
"That's not a very good thing to do. Inevitably you'll be disappointed as, apart from anything else, you'll have sacrficed your own integrity and abused your own intelligence for nothing. Working to promote the antithesis of your values and goals is not a sound means of attaining your values and goals."
Or I could be an argumentative libertarian, moral & pure...but ignored by all and stranded far away from my values or goals...
You support abortion because it is a "freedom"*, I support it because studies indicate that it reduces the number of unloved babies that grow up criminals who impinge on my freedoms...
Same aim, different reason.
* I note that you still do not concede that the foetus has any rights: It certainly didn't choose to be conceived by its possibly "slapper" mother, and you are not allowing it to choose to live.
"Or I could be an argumentative libertarian, moral & pure...but ignored by all and stranded far away from my values or goals..."
Spot on Clunking Fist!
Mr Dennis...I would rather not deal with the Family Party...(or any other group of lunatics involved in medieval witchcraft and soothsayers)...and hope no one in the Libz is entertaining that sort of nonsense.
The Libz will change this country for the better without having to compromise.
At the risk of sounding like a pathetic braggart troll: Look at the numbers[1]:
Year Libz Votes
______________
1996 671
1999 5,949
2002 672
2005 946
2008 1070
With that kind of track record, what influence is there? Ideas? The ideas are not being supported by those numbers. On this present course, what influence should Libz expect in the future? Whatever is being done is not working. This isn't about compromise. This is about delusions.
Table source: Wikipedia: Libertarianz
Exactly WTBA. And just how do you plan to "change this country for the better without having to compromise" Elijah?
Oh you would be surprised as to what plans are being formulated...ha ha!
Does it involve sitting cross-legged in small groups humming and gently rocking back and forth?
;^)
Actually, even if you continue to poll less than the margin of error squared, the IDEAS may still make a difference. After all, I'm won over to legalising pot not just for the pragmatic reasons the Libz mention (why do they do that if it's all about the principle), but the "principle" based reasons, too: freedom.
Hi Fist, LG, Mr D & Elijah .. you know, it's conversations like this that drive me bloody crazy -- but then I always did have a shorter fuse than most. ;)
Surely the point is that which the Libertarianz has always made: that we will work with anybody who supports freedom/responsibility on an issue-by-issue basis.
It can make for strange bedfellows at times, but there it is.
Sus
Fair enough.
LGM
No it is not fair enough...(sorry Sue)
What if there was some organisation calling for lowering the age of consent to 5 years old...and claimed they and the Libz should get together "in the interests of freedom"
Should we get involved with them?
Or what of people suggesting that "in the interests of freedom" the Libz should assist them in their efforts to add 'The Earth Is Flat" to the school curriculum?
I see no difference between that sort of thing and those advocating "Medieval Witchcraft and Soothsayers"..(as I refer to Christianity)
Hi Elijah .. but the point is that we wouldn't join them on those particular issues, being contrary to our beliefs.
We certainly supported the Exclusive Brethren's right to disseminate their leaflets three years ago, even though we may well disagree with other viewpoints they hold.
As we supported Keith Locke's bid to abolish sedition, in spite of normally being opposed to everything old Keith stands for.
As I said, it can sometimes make for strange bedfellows. ;)
Thanks Sus for a rational response, as opposed to Elijah's name-calling which simply shows how little he knows about Christianity, witchcraft, soothsaying or pragmatism. It is good to see there are some practical people in Libz.
Jesus, Sus: that read dangerously close to pragmatism!
:^)
But didn't you know that's our middle name, Fist?! ;)
.. or perhaps I just like to live on the edge ...
:)
WantsToBeAnonymous
It took one individual to come up with the term "Nanny State", explain it and promote it. Now that term is well understood and discussed. Even the ex-Prime Minister knows what that term refers to, so much so that she made the attempt to claim it didn't apply to New Zealand and the New Zealand government.
As it happens, that lone person, the man who ecapsulated what was happening here in NZ within the term "nanny state" was a senior Libertarianz Party member.
What you really need to learn here are two things:
1/. Ideas matter. Understanding them is very important.
2/. Argument by social metaphysics (as you have done) is irrelevant to the understanding of ideas.
LGM
Post a Comment