User Tag List

First 345

Results 41 to 45 of 45

  1. #41
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It was because you didn't ask a question, and what you said wasn't interesting. That's it. But since you're desperate need for attention is making you press the point, let me respond.

    Even when a radical solution is needed, a radical solution is not necessarily fundamentalist, going by the definitions I used (maybe you mean something different).
    Members here, yourself included, have shown a general aversion to the radical in previous posts.

    If your beef was simply with people who interpret their religion literally then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    The hip, chill, peace-loving types make good rulers in times of prosperity but mess everything up when shit hits the fan. We see it now - Barack Obama, David Cameron et cetera are not good at handling threats. They are maintainers, not movers and shakers.
    Again, you are talking all over the place. Do you think someone has to be a fundamentalist to wage a war? Do you think someone who goes to war is automatically fundamentalist? Some of the most belligerent people I can think of were not particularly fundamentalist. And since you refer to threats (and who knows what exactly you mean by) you're talking about people committing to war for the sake of defense. One certainly wouldn't need to be a fundamentalist to do that.
    OK, let's just figure out what we both mean by a fundamentalist first.

    I have seen it used synonymously with "extremist" on the forum. This can mean somebody who is prepared to make political decisions that would be widely considered extreme and controversial to protect the national interest, whatever their religious or political affiliation (though we are assuming it's a bit out there)

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Unlike you, I think there is room on the planet for both types of people.
    Really? I would not be surprised if there is never a situation in which you think there is more room for different kinds of people than me.
    (This is an aside, but for future reference: I am a big advocate of ideological diversity, and don't believe in suppressing somebody because their opinions are different to my own. My concern is with racial diversity within a country, because this inevitably leads to the elimination of unique ethnicities and their cultures. I can't understand how people without an agenda can simultaneously be so passionate about nationalism in Tibet and then hiss racism at it in a European country. The political left should be honest about their beliefs and intentions.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Fundamentalism is not necessar to avert danger. You simply do not need the things that define fundamentalism (according to the definition I used) to be able to resist a threat. You need to make that case. The burden of proof is on you. Richelieu, Bismarck, Nasser, these people were not peaceniks, and they were not fundamentalists, but they were good at securing their nations' interests.
    Ah, so you are talking more about religious fundamentalism than a critique of reactionary policies in general? If so, we are on different pages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Hah. Seriously. Do you feel better now for letting that out? It's not a travesty if someone doesn't respond to your posts, and you do not have a pivileged position in terms of the priority your posts warrant or the value of your opinion.

    Also, you don't embrace diversity at all, so do not demand other people to do so.
    As expected you didn't detect the irony. Another humorless liberal.

  2. #42
    The Dark Lord The Wailing Specter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/so
    Socionics
    ENFP Ne
    Posts
    3,270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Why are you asking me? Why not check the ban thread?
    I will.
    Enneagram: 6w7 (phobic) > 2w1 > 9w1
    Alignment: Chaotic Neutral
    Holland Code: AIS
    Date of Birth: March 15, 1996
    Gender: Male
    Political Stance: Libertarian Liberal (Arizona School/Strong BHL)
    ATHEIST UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST HUMANIST
    and
    SCIENCE ENTHUSIAST


    I say this as a reminder to myself, but this goes for everyone:

    You can achieve anything you set your mind to, and you are limited only by how dedicated you are to succeed!

    -Magic Qwan

  3. #43
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Members here, yourself included, have shown a general aversion to the radical in previous posts.
    sorry darling, your argument isn't particularly original on the internet. you might have been better off had you put a new spin on a tired old trolling argument, but you didn't. it's almost like you didn't even think before typing but instead just parroted something that you'd heard before in hopes that you'd get some attention. it's almost cute...

    I'd offer you a hug, but I'm not the hugging type so I'll let the internet do it for me so that I don't have to deal with the overall ickiness of physical contact with someone who I have no plans of fucking

    <--- internet hug

    to address your concerns, soon a cadre of black suvs shall be pulling up outside of your house in order to take you to an undisclosed location in order to rehabilitate you, possibly with a flood of kittens. In the meantime, I didn't see any arguments against people thinking any particular way... actions and thoughts are different matters. harming someone because they're different is a very bad thing, however, disliking them makes you a douchy asshole, but it doesn't have the same impact unless you're convincing others to harm those who are different.

    quit thinking that you're special...
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  4. #44
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Members here, yourself included, have shown a general aversion to the radical in previous posts.
    I've also been called a hopeless radical on this forum, so that doesn't mean much to me. I've been a lot of things to a lot of people, and it has little to do with what I have actually done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    If your beef was simply with people who interpret their religion literally then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    I know it wasn't immediately easy to find, but the definition of fundamentalist I was using was elaborated in my exchange with whatever. It was in this post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    OK, let's just figure out what we both mean by a fundamentalist first.
    See above

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I have seen it used synonymously with "extremist" on the forum. This can mean somebody who is prepared to make political decisions that would be widely considered extreme and controversial to protect the national interest, whatever their religious or political affiliation (though we are assuming it's a bit out there)
    That's fairly broad, and it will change with culture, since something is really only extreme relative to a context. Also, such behavior would not be unusual for a dictator/monarch, as they historically are not very dependent on popular opinion. I cannot say, in principle, that I am against someone who fits this definition of fundamentalist. It could hypothetically happen that this would be the right thing to do, though I'm struggling to think of a historical example right now. Oh, I know, abolishing slavery. Had someone done it earlier than Lincoln, it certainly would have been an example, and it was even a tough decision when Lincoln made it. Even the north was really racist, and they just wanted to the war to end, and abolition of slavery threatened to continue the war. It took executive power to declare the Emancipation Proclamation, and it took a lot of corruption to barely pass in the house. So is Lincoln a fundamentalist, then?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    (This is an aside, but for future reference: I am a big advocate of ideological diversity, and don't believe in suppressing somebody because their opinions are different to my own. My concern is with racial diversity within a country, because this inevitably leads to the elimination of unique ethnicities and their cultures. I can't understand how people without an agenda can simultaneously be so passionate about nationalism in Tibet and then hiss racism at it in a European country. The political left should be honest about their beliefs and intentions.)
    I think you need to do a better job of understanding the individuals you are talking to rather than treating everyone as representatives of a hive mind. You actually don't know what my stance is on any of the things you just mentioned there. But regarding them, I do oppose ethnic purity policies in European states and I do oppose China's occupation of Tibet, but I don't see them as related at all. I oppose what China has done on the basis of things such as state sovereignty (China took over Tibet in a hostile fashion) and my objections to the government of China and its practices in Tibet. What does this have to do with ethnicity in Europe?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Ah, so you are talking more about religious fundamentalism than a critique of reactionary policies in general? If so, we are on different pages.
    As you can see, my definition is not restricted to religion. But not everyone who is a reactionary is fundamentalist. The white army of Russia was reactionary by definition, but not clearly fundamentalist in any overarching way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    As expected you didn't detect the irony. Another humorless liberal.
    Maybe the joke sucked. It was too much of a non-sequitur.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #45
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    Members here, yourself included, have shown a general aversion to the radical in previous posts.
    Aversion?
    At least a couple of us view radicalism as political enemy #1.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] So.. if life's a bitch, then am I wrong for trying to enjoy the ride?
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
  2. ISFJ reporting for duty! (To come out of hiding and learn a thing or two)
    By NYmac86 in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 07:11 AM
  3. got a new one for you to figure on
    By razorback in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 08:37 PM
  4. Advice for soon-to-be undergraduate students.
    By Bear Warp in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-29-2008, 09:20 PM
  5. What's the word for "pertaining to children"
    By darlets in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 08:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO