I've just addressed it, looks like you missed it again. Look again.
.
I've just addressed it, looks like you missed it again. Look again.
Lacewing, the irony is that DAM and Nick have an opposite ideology. In truth, everything that Nick blabbers on about DAM believes not to be illusion.
Would you say it is possible for a person growing up under these conditions not to have the overwhelming compulsion to kill others? What would account for resistance to this apparently government encouraged urge to kill?
I've noticed that they avoid assessing each other's words and claims with the same focus and vigor they use on other people. It would be much more interesting for philosophical discussion if they'd challenge each other authentically... instead of trying to come up with cheesy similarities, a tactic they don't do with other people. To me it looks like a farce among frauds.
I wonder if Walker shares Nick's keenness for the Apocalypse?
Greta wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:24 amI wonder if Walker shares Nick's keenness for the Apocalypse?
I wonder if Walker and Nick believe that DAM is right to claim that everything they believe in is BS, just pointless illusions?
I wonder if Walker, Nick and DAM have anything ideas in common at all aside from an unwavering support for the Republican Party?
Greta and Lacewing are agenda driven. Whatever the secular progressive agenda dictates is truth for their agenda. Impartial reason just gets in the way of the agenda. The thinking has already been done which is apparently very comforting for them because all they have to do is emotionally attack Trump which doesn't require thought."When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil
No, I'm not, Nick. And I've explained this to you before. So don't be so lame as to just blindly accuse me of your limited ideas AGAIN... in response to what has been truthfully pointed out about your behavior on this forum.
Have you ever opposed the secular progressive agenda?Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:32 amNo, I'm not, Nick. And I've explained this to you before. So don't be so lame as to just blindly accuse me of your limited ideas AGAIN... in response to what has been truthfully pointed out about your behavior on this forum.
There are, of course, times that we all have agendas -- YOU DO TOO. That's different than what you are suggesting: which is that it's a driving characteristic of mine. You don't know jack shit (as DAM would say).
I am primarily directed by a sense of spirit. I consciously see things and I listen for intuitive/spiritual direction and I act or change course as needed. It is an organic flow -- not some kind of rigid agenda/reward system. Agendas do not own me or convince me of anything. Everyone who knows me, knows this. There is no truthful reason for you to say such a thing about me.
People do not fit into the narrow terms/definitions you preach, Nick.
I don't see that there is "such a specific thing" as that (because there are variations)... BUT if there was, yes, I would oppose it BECAUSE I am suspicious of anything that is out of balance. I do not think that any group or platform knows everything or should be in complete control of everyone.
''Progressives'' aren't secular. Quite the opposite. ''Progressivism'', like ''Communism'', is a religion in itself. They are both about control and manipulation. ''Progressives'' can be christian, not christian, 'other'....Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:39 amHave you ever opposed the secular progressive agenda?Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:32 amNo, I'm not, Nick. And I've explained this to you before. So don't be so lame as to just blindly accuse me of your limited ideas AGAIN... in response to what has been truthfully pointed out about your behavior on this forum.
There are, of course, times that we all have agendas -- YOU DO TOO. That's different than what you are suggesting: which is that it's a driving characteristic of mine. You don't know jack shit (as DAM would say).
I am primarily directed by a sense of spirit. I consciously see things and I listen for intuitive/spiritual direction and I act or change course as needed. It is an organic flow -- not some kind of rigid agenda/reward system. Agendas do not own me or convince me of anything. Everyone who knows me, knows this. There is no truthful reason for you to say such a thing about me.
People do not fit into the narrow terms/definitions you preach, Nick.
According to this article in Psychology Today, a secular progressive is just a humanist without any concern for a higher authority. The secular progressive agenda strives to actualize this belief. Is there anything about it you oppose?Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:49 amI don't see that there is "such a specific thing" as that (because there are variations)... BUT if there was, yes, I would oppose it BECAUSE I am suspicious of anything that is out of balance. I do not think that any group or platform knows everything or should be in complete control of everyone.
Your rigidity and condemnations are very suspicious and out of balance.
Is there anything in the above two pargraphs that you would not argue in favor of?Some have suggested that the first sentence of Humanism and Its Aspirations can be utilized as the elevator speech: “Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”………………
………Of course, a true secular-progressive won’t accept O’Reilly’s simplistic vilification of the term, but instead will stand ready to rebut his absurd suggestion that “culture warriors” (O’Reilly’s term for those standing opposed to secular-progressives) are the real patriots. Secular-progressives are hardly unanimous in their views on social and political issues, but they generally stand for rational public policy based on evidence. Pragmatic, respectful of both freedom and equality, and skeptical of concentrated power in all forms, secular-progressives have nothing to be ashamed of. (After all, it's the culture warrior camp that includes those who believe the world is less than 10,000 years old! Need I say more?)
Thus, if you hit the button in an elevator and someone notices your “humanist” button or t-shirt and asks what it means, consider this response: “I’m a secular-progressive.”
Why do I need to read a bunch of stuff I don't care about -- just to answer a specific question? Your obsessions are not how I think. I've already explained very clearly and generously what "directs" me... and it's not agendas. So why don't you honor that, acknowledge that you were in error, and stop asking me to jump through more of your hoops to prove something to you? What is your agenda, Nick, in asking me to confirm or deny something in particular? You're trying to judge/categorize me somehow, correct?