Specialty Item

ruggedscout98 said:Where are the actual arguments? Or are you just sharing your personal feelings? "Always"? Was Ante Starčević a leftist?

Was Abraham Lincoln really a liberal? Since when did that become the consensus? 🤣

David Johnson8 said:If you want my humble—and let’s be honest, completely subjective—take on what a "natural state" actually looks like, I’d say the whole concept is an oxymoron, for heaven's sake.

Anything that wasn't cooked up by nature is technically "unnatural"—that much is obvious—but does that actually make it bad? I mean, look at it this way: there are all sorts of different types of tribes out there, some passive, some aggressive. Historically, people formed these groups specifically to protect themselves from the more aggressive ones—essentially, collectivism is what eventually managed to tame the raw savagery you seem to despise so much. And honestly, that same logic applies on a macro level too—when you look at it through the lens of national identity.

So, you’re calling me out on the whole "natural" thing—implying I’m actually out here championing it? Honestly, you're being a bit contradictory in certain spots there—it feels like you're missing the nuance of my actual position.

Mother Nature didn't just show up one day and hand us the internet, computers, medicine, art, or science—it doesn't work like that. Those are all human constructs, really. And honestly, that’s precisely what sets us apart from primitive animals—well, places ourselves above them, anyway. The same logic applies to the concept of a nation.

Nationhood and religion aren't "cults"—you're mixing up your terms. While it's true plenty of wars have been triggered by religion, religion itself isn't the cause; the cause is always greed for power and wealth. Religion, nationality, race—those are just the tools used to manipulate the masses. But that doesn't make those concepts inherently bad. It's not all black and white. Blaming religion is kind of like blaming science for the atomic bomb and calling science regressive. Even nationalism is relative to time and space; being a nationalist in one era or region is nothing like being one in another. Actually, right now is exactly when we need culture and its various fruits most, because globalization is making everyone eat, work, look, and think exactly the same way—essentially leading us toward a kind of mental slavery. Otherwise, this asceticism you seem so drawn to is pretty characteristic of radical right-wingers—including folks like Hitler and various nationalists throughout history. You aren't being consistent, even though you claim everything is "plain as day," because you've reduced everything to a single dimension. It sounds like you've got one grandfather who was a hardline conservative and another who was a staunch liberal, so you've just clumsily mashed together whatever ideas happen to suit you. If you haven't read Knut Hamsun, you should—he advocated for an ascetic lifestyle and was a favorite of the Third Reich 🙂. He’s a bit dull if you ask me, but you might actually enjoy him.

Nice try. A decent attempt at a spin, but it won't work. There are plenty of man-made things out there; some are stupid, primitive, and dangerous, while others are beautiful, like fine art. It was a good effort, but you can't pass this one. Sorry if my posts ended up shattering your worldview.

Grace Wood5 said:😂If they’d tried that stunt in a small town in rural America, I bet there would have been three more worms floating in the water pretty damn quick. 😂😬

Honestly, those guys got lucky because they showed up early in the morning. If they had tried to stir the pot in the afternoon when the local fishermen are already wound tight, things would have gone south fast.

shadowmason5 said:Was Abraham Lincoln really a liberal? Since when did that become the consensus? 🤣

He was a classic liberal, which is a completely different beast from what people call "liberalism" today. It’s like how a word gets hijacked—once those old Marxists seized the term, they twisted the whole concept of freedom into something else entirely, turning an ideology of liberty into a tool for forced conformity and terror against anyone who dares to think differently.

Sean Sanders said:Nice try. A decent attempt at a spin, but it won't work. There are plenty of man-made things out there; some are stupid, primitive, and dangerous, while others are beautiful, like fine art. It was a good effort, but you can't pass this one. Sorry if my posts ended up shattering your worldview.

Anything can be weaponized if it falls into the wrong hands—I’ve already made that comparison using science—so let's be real. You claim I "shattered your worldview" 🤣, but honestly, you don't even seem to know what yours actually is; you're contradicting yourself and being inconsistent at every turn. Just because you feel the need to broadcast your animosity toward the nation and religion doesn't mean you've actually made an argument.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

I am unsure what Scholl is reading, but he either fails to grasp the content or chooses to misinterpret it with malicious intent.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

Scholl agrees that "no sane person denies ecological issues," yet he immediately aligns himself with the irrational by branding environmental protection as a "dangerous new ideology," "esotericism, mythomania, and misanthropy," and a "global leftist mutation." Either Scholl is ignorant or he is intentionally ignoring conservative environmental schools and organizations. He feels the need to "explain" to the average American reader that the "leftists" are responsible for all evil. It is as if he would prefer we all perish in a poisoned wasteland rather than concede any ground to the left.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Maybe Smith saw some of your posts and you managed to gross him out enough that he stopped reading altogether. 🙂
There’s nothing factually wrong in his text; maybe something was just misinterpreted, but you didn't actually point out where.

As for the actual topic—the leftist Prime Minister in Spain recently tried to grant certain human rights to monkeys instead of actually dealing with their record-breaking unemployment numbers.

It is quite a spectacle. One is expected to ignore the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below those of animals—especially since access to water is no longer treated as a fundamental right (while factory chickens are guaranteed minimum living space, displaced workers have nothing).

By the way, to be fair, the initiative to protect monkeys predates the Great Recession and the subsequent surge in unemployment.

Rebecca Roberts3 said:I am unsure what Scholl is reading, but he either fails to grasp the content or chooses to misinterpret it with malicious intent.

Scholl agrees that "no sane person denies ecological issues," yet he immediately aligns himself with the irrational by branding environmental protection as a "dangerous new ideology," "esotericism, mythomania, and misanthropy," and a "global leftist mutation." Either Scholl is ignorant or he is intentionally ignoring conservative environmental schools and organizations. He feels the need to "explain" to the average American reader that the "leftists" are responsible for all evil. It is as if he would prefer we all perish in a poisoned wasteland rather than concede any ground to the left.

It is quite a spectacle. One is expected to ignore the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below those of animals—especially since access to water is no longer treated as a fundamental right (while factory chickens are guaranteed minimum living space, displaced workers have nothing).

By the way, to be fair, the initiative to protect monkeys predates the Great Recession and the subsequent surge in unemployment.

Well, obviously you're gonna be against him if you didn't actually catch what he said. He never claimed conservation was a dangerous ideology. What you're doing is like if Scholl brought up cases where criminals used humanitarian charities as a front for child trafficking or terrorism—you can't turn around and blame him for being "rude" for pointing out the truth about bad actors.

Quincy:

Just imagine. You aren't bothered by the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below animal rights, especially since access to water isn't even treated as a basic human right anymore (I mean, factory chickens get guaranteed floor space while displaced people have absolutely nothing).

How do you know I'm not bothered? Why are you even bringing this stuff up in this thread? You totally missed my point...

Jacob Lewis5 said:Well, obviously you're gonna be against him if you didn't actually catch what he said. He never claimed conservation was a dangerous ideology. What you're doing is like if Scholl brought up cases where criminals used humanitarian charities as a front for child trafficking or terrorism—you can't turn around and blame him for being "rude" for pointing out the truth about bad actors.

Quincy:

Just imagine. You aren't bothered by the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below animal rights, especially since access to water isn't even treated as a basic human right anymore (I mean, factory chickens get guaranteed floor space while displaced people have absolutely nothing).

How do you know I'm not bothered? Why are you even bringing this stuff up in this thread? You totally missed my point...

He didn't?

"A new dangerous ideology is being born: environmentalism...
(...)
this entire spectacle by those green communists in Copenhagen is a call to arms: Environmentalists of the world, unite! The 21st century belongs to us!"

Someone should suggest he study the life of Saint Francis of Assisi, a true Christian mystic. Scholl would likely label him an esotericist, a mythmaker, or a misanthrope.

Scholl functions as a mere functionary for the Church as a political institution—not a religious one—and serves as an apologist for the Republican Party, which operates more like a criminal enterprise. When it comes to matters of spirituality and ethics, he is either utterly incompetent or a transparent manipulator. I suspect the latter; it is hard to believe there isn't a single shred of understanding there. Had he been born a few centuries ago, he likely would have sat on an Inquisition tribunal. It is hardly surprising that the Catholic Church is losing followers when they are represented by people like Scholl.

James Nguyen13 said:He was a classic liberal, which is a completely different beast from what people call "liberalism" today. It’s like how a word gets hijacked—once those old Marxists seized the term, they twisted the whole concept of freedom into something else entirely, turning an ideology of liberty into a tool for forced conformity and terror against anyone who dares to think differently.

A generic breed—is that really how a liberal would phrase it?