Hatred of Christians in America?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Nobody questions that McCain suffered tremendous torture during his POW time. Candidate Trump asked why we should applaud someone who basically got caught. That statement/inquiry was indeed an insult to anyone who has been a POW. It's also an insult to the families.

I'll defend POTUS on his policies and nominations, but when he says stupid/hurtful stuff I just watch and mourn.

Right on. When Trump is right, defend him. When he's a buffoon, call him a buffoon.

Some things Trump says are simply indefensible.

Stop supporting people, people, and start supporting right and wrong, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Vort said:

False equivalency. I appreciate your metaphor, but even in the metaphor, the assignment of blame is greatly unbalanced. To say that "both are idiots" suggests that they are equally guilty. They are not, either in your example or in the real-life equivalent.

Trump is a buffoon and an embarrassment. He is still ten times better as President than Hillary Clinton would have been.

The point isn’t that their culpability is identical.  The point is that Trump and his admirers no longer get to play the victim card or claim any moral high ground.

Comparing Trump versus Hillary strikes me as another false equivalency, of sorts; for it presumes Hillary was not eminently beatable in the general and it assumes conservatives didn’t have a baker’s dozen of candidates in the primary who were more thoughtful, more articulate, and more ideologically compatible.  As to whether Trump’s “transformational” qualities have left conservatism’s long-term outlook worse off than it would have been in a post-Hillary world—we’ll never completely know; but I suspect that four years of Hillary and a Republican Congress followed by a strong conservative in 2020 would have left us better positioned for the next fifty years.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The point isn’t that their culpability is identical.  The point is that Trump and his admirers no longer get to play the victim card or claim any moral high ground.

Comparing Trump versus Hillary strikes me as another false equivalency, of sorts; for it presumes Hillary was not eminently beatable in the general and it assumes conservatives didn’t have a baker’s dozen of candidates in the primary who were more thoughtful, more articulate, and more ideologically compatible.  As to whether Trump’s “transformational” qualities have left conservatism’s long-term outlook worse off than it would have been in a post-Hillary world—we’ll never completely know; but I suspect that four years of Hillary and a Republican Congress followed by a strong conservative in 2020 would have left us better positioned for the next fifty years.

There's another serious problem with your analogy. What Billy has been doing, in reality, is much worse than sniggering and poking at his classmates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Bobby's got a knife too. A bigger one.

:satan:

Of sorts.  Billy has the academia, the journalism, the entertainment, the super-rich, and the courts.  

Bobby’s got the majority of the guns (less now than he used to, due to Obama’s purges of the military)—but using them’s gonna cost him.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

There's another serious problem with your analogy. What Billy has been doing, in reality, is much worse than sniggering and poking at his classmates.

Certainly.  On the other hand, and more germane to the analogy—it’s far less than what he’s capable of doing once he gets you into the brawl he so clearly wants.  So the question you’ve got to ask is whether you can beat him in a brawl, or whether you need to hold out until you can engage in a higher form of combat on your own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Certainly.  On the other hand, and more germane to the analogy—it’s far less than what he’s capable of doing once he gets you into the brawl he so clearly wants.  So the question you’ve got to ask is whether you can beat him in a brawl, or whether you need to hold out until you can engage in a higher form of combat on your own terms.

In theory, sure. In end-of-times practice, I'm just not sure that higher form you're hoping for is a game that Billy will ever play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

In theory, sure. In end-of-times practice, I'm just not sure that higher form you're hoping for is a game that Billy will ever play.

In the end-of-times practice, we need a leader who carries the Spirit of God with him; and that ain’t Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In the end-of-times practice, we need a leader who carries the Spirit of God with him; and that ain’t Trump.

A. So? That doesn't mean he's wrong. (or right) in any given matter. B. Sometimes the only response to a bully is a good punch in the nose, regardless of the moral merits of the one doing the punching. C. If you're worried about my vote, worry not. I did not vote for Trump and would/will not if/when he runs again. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A. So? That doesn't mean he's wrong. (or right) in any given matter. B. Sometimes the only response to a bully is a good punch in the nose, regardless of the moral merits of the one doing the punching. C. If you're worried about my vote, worry not. I did not vote for Trump and would/will not if/when he runs again. ;)

A.  Sure; but I was thrown by your reference to end-times, I guess.  A scenario where we give as good as we get, politically speaking, doesn’t really jibe with LDS eschatology.

B.  Fair point; but when you do that you have to consider the possibility that he’ll start punching back.  I don’t think a lot of Trump supporters thought that through; which is why they’re now doing doing this wide-eyes “why ya pickin’ on me?” routine when they see progressives stepping up the nasty.

Trumpers talk a good game, but they aren’t ready for war.  They have no idea what war is even like.  Like the miserable southern firebrands of a hundred and fifty years ago—they’ll make fine speeches and fire the first shots on Fort Sumter, and accept the kisses of all the pretty ladies; but when Sherman comes marching through they’ll long since have slithered off to some neutral shore—leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess.  Assuming we make it through alive ourselves, of course . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A. ... A scenario where we give as good as we get, politically speaking, doesn’t really jibe with LDS eschatology.

This is not, imo, what has happened. You don't punch the bully in the nose for revenge. You punch him to stop the bullying. You protect your rights. This is a war over rights. The left is determined to strip us of those rights. Trump is defending them (when he is, you know...actually defending them and not just saying something stupid). I have a hard time criticizing the guy who finally steps in and punches the bully in the nose. In fact, I have a hard time not cheering.

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

B.  Fair point; but when you do that you have to consider the possibility that he’ll start punching back.  I don’t think a lot of Trump supporters thought that through; which is why they’re now doing doing this wide-eyes “why ya pickin’ on me?” routine when they see progressives stepping up the nasty.

This may be true. I think it's presumption. When push comes to shove I think the freedom-loving, honest, hard-working, blue-collar, AMERICANS know exactly what it means to pick a fight in response to injustice. It's the spoiled pansy SJWs who are biting the hand that feeds them that, I think, will be surprised when and if the scooby hits the doo.

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Trumpers talk a good game, but they aren’t ready for war.  They have no idea what war is even like.  They’ll fire the shots on Fort Sumter, sure; but when Sherman comes marching through they’ll long since have slithered off to some neutral shore—leaving the rest of us to clean up the mess.  Assuming we make it through alive ourselves, of course . . .

Strikes me as a bit cynical. I suspect some bias.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

B.  Fair point; but when you do that you have to consider the possibility that he’ll start punching back.  I don’t think a lot of Trump supporters thought that through; which is why they’re now doing doing this wide-eyes “why ya pickin’ on me?” routine when they see progressives stepping up the nasty.

 

I don't buy this part.  I think we all know that the progressives excel at being nasty.  We've all watched them at it for several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This may be true. I think it's presumption. When push comes to shove I think the freedom-loving, honest, hard-working, blue-collar, AMERICANS know exactly what it means to pick a fight in response to injustice. It's the spoiled pansy SJWs who are biting the hand that feeds them that, I think, will be surprised when and if the scooby hits the doo.

 

This is who I think is in for a big surprise when push comes to shove.  The progressives are used to the conservatives rolling over and playing dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]This is not, imo, what has happened. You don't punch the bully in the nose for revenge. You punch him to stop the bullying. You protect your rights. This is a war over rights. The left is determined to strip us of those rights. Trump is defending them (when he is, you know...actually defending them and not just saying something stupid). I have a hard time criticizing the guy who finally steps in and punches the bully in the nose. In fact, I have a hard time not cheering.

[2]This may be true. I think it's presumption. When push comes to shove I think the freedom-loving, honest, hard-working, blue-collar, AMERICANS know exactly what it means to pick a fight in response to injustice. It's the spoiled pansy SJWs who are biting the hand that feeds them that, I think, will be surprised when and if the scooby hits the doo.

[3]Strikes me as a bit cynical. I suspect some bias.

1.  Perhaps; but—and I think this maybe tangentially evokes a discussion we had last week about Moroni—even in wartime, there are certain tactics that are counterproductive and/or wrong.  Nephites around AD 300 were in an existential fight, but Mormon was very clear that that didn’t make it OK to rape and eat female POWs no matter how good doing so made the Nephites feel.  If you want to have God on your side, ya gotta watch your methods.  

2.  (Also, @mirkwood). I agree that it’s dangerous to generalize.  On the other hand, it certainly seems to be the case with this thread’s resident Trumpian, who—responding to a remark from @JohnsonJonesabout Trump’s unparalleled offensiveness—replies with the cry of “fake news!  Fake news!”  

Look, we all know presidents with an “R” by their name will inevitably get media pushback.  But Trumpians can’t have it both ways—they can’t salivate over what a “fighter” Trump is, whilst simultaneously whining about getting an unparalleled and unwarranted response from the Left.

Nor do I think the left is by any means out of weapons.

3.  One man’s “bias” is another man’s “sad experience”.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Perhaps; but—and I think this maybe tangentially evokes a discussion we had last week about Moroni—even in wartime, there are certain tactics that are counterproductive and/or wrong.  Nephites around AD 300 were in an existential fight, but Mormon was very clear that that didn’t make it OK to rape and eat female POWs no matter how good doing so made the Nephites feel.  If you want to have God on your side, ya gotta watch your methods.  

Hyperbole much? :D

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  (Also, @mirkwood). I agree that it’s dangerous to generalize.  On the other hand, it certainly seems to be the case with this thread’s resident Trumpian, who—responding to a remark from @JohnsonJonesabout Trump’s unparalleled offensiveness—replies with the cry of “fake news!  Fake news!”  

If you categorize "Trumpians" narrowly enough I suppose you can generalize them right well. I suspect the true-blue Trumpians, as it were, are as likely to respond defensively for the sake of defensiveness at any criticism of the man at all. That being the case, however, does not mean all who support any given thing he does or says fit into that mold, nor does it have any bearing, once more, on the right or wrong of it.

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Look, we all know presidents with an “R” by their name will inevitably get media pushback.  But Trumpians can’t have it both ways—they can’t salivate over what a “fighter” Trump is, whilst simultaneously whining about getting an unparalleled and unwarranted response from the Left.

I don't think it fair to characterize responding to criticisms and attacks as "whining". If "the Left" tells a lie, then it's a lie. Calling it so is not whining.

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One man’s “bias” is another man’s “sad experience”.  

A nice adage. But experience defining bias does not render bias valid -- or useful. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, @Just_A_Guy, I so rarely disagree with you that it's been fun going at each other over Trump a bit. I must admit, however, that although I do not think I have pro-Trump bias (whereas I do sense some anti-Trump bias on your part), I do have a great deal of enemy-of-my-enemy bias at play, perhaps. Just wanted to let you know I'm aware of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]Hyperbole much? :D

[2]If you categorize "Trumpians" narrowly enough I suppose you can generalize them right well. I suspect the true-blue Trumpians, as it were, are as likely to respond defensively for the sake of defensiveness at any criticism of the man at all. That being the case, however, does not mean all who support any given thing he does or says fit into that mold, nor does it have any bearing, once more, on the right or wrong of it.

[3]I don't think it fair to characterize responding to criticisms and attacks as "whining". If "the Left" tells a lie, then it's a lie. Calling it so is not whining.

[4]A nice adage. But experience defining bias does not render bias valid -- or useful. ;)

1.  An extreme example, to be sure.  That said, I think the fundamental point stands:  you don’t win a fight against evil by co-opting evil. 

2.  Oh, I agree with you there.  To the extent that Trump is occasionally right, or gets a raw deal; I hope to be open to pointing that out (one of the reasons I’ve gotten disillusioned about McMullin is that he has become so knee-jerk anti-Trump even on stuff like the election-hacking nonsense).

3.  That’s not the sort of stuff I label “whining”.  The stuff I label “whining” is when Republicans navel-gaze about why Dems have been so especially mean to us lately, and someone points out “well, we did kind of just nominate a jack-burro for the presidency”, and Republicans come back with “no, no, he’s no different than all our previous standard bearers.  But seriously—why do they hate us? It’s just so unfair.”

That’s whining.

4.  Indeed.  But bias doesn’t make one wrong, either.  I’m pretty biased against Justin Bieber; but my bias doesn’t make his music any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Nobody questions that McCain suffered tremendous torture during his POW time. Candidate Trump asked why we should applaud someone who basically got caught. That statement/inquiry was indeed an insult to anyone who has been a POW. It's also an insult to the families.

I'll defend POTUS on his policies and nominations, but when he says stupid/hurtful stuff I just watch and mourn.

Ding ding ding! Exactly. It's not that he mocked McCain, it's that he mocked McCain's military service. THAT'S the issue that doesn't sit well with some veterans.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hyperbole much? :D

I was gonna have fun verbifying that, but hyperbolize is already a word, in the dictionary and everything! :angry:

Instead, we could make a homophone: hyperbowl (verb) - to roll a ball down a lane toward a set of pins hyperactively1 or with unusual energy.

hyperbowl (noun) - a bowl that can't calm down and be quiet.

:D

1 apparently not a word, though it sure seems like it oughta be.  I mean really, "hyperactively" or "in a hyperactive manner" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

[hyperbowl video]

Sigh.  Really?  Even I, the extreme introvert, would rather go to an actual bowling alley than do that.  Actually, I rather like bowling alleys.

Still, yes, another homophone for our list.

hyperbowl: what a bowl-cut looks like on a two-year-old experiencing a sugar-rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zil said:

Sigh.  Really?  Even I, the extreme introvert, would rather go to an actual bowling alley than do that.  Actually, I rather like bowling alleys.

Still, yes, another homophone for our list.

hyperbowl: what a bowl-cut looks like on a two-year-old experiencing a sugar-rush.

The Epitome of Hyperbole (pronounced "The Epi-toam of Hyper-bowl")

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  An extreme example, to be sure.  That said, I think the fundamental point stands:  you don’t win a fight against evil by co-opting evil. 

But the premise that all acts retain their evil nature even in the extreme course of...shall we say...human events...is a misstep. Punching someone in the face is evil in one case, and perfectly righteous in another. To put a finer point on the matter, we'll replace the punching example with, say... -- driving someone from a place with a whip.

43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  That’s not the sort of stuff I label “whining”.  The stuff I label “whining” is when Republicans navel-gaze about why Dems have been so especially mean to us lately, and someone points out “well, we did kind of just nominate a jack-burro for the presidency”, and Republicans come back with “no, no, he’s no different than all our previous standard bearers.  But seriously—why do they hate us? It’s just so unfair.”

That’s whining.

I see. So two wrongs do make a right, after all? ;)

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

4.  Indeed.  But bias doesn’t make one wrong, either. 

I feel like that's exactly what bias does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

[1]. But the premise that all acts retain their evil nature even in the extreme course of...shall we say...human events...is a misstep. Punching someone in the face is evil in one case, and perfectly righteous in another. To put a finer point on the matter, we'll replace the punching example with, say... -- driving someone from a place with a whip.

[2]I see. So two wrongs do make a right, after all? ;)

[3]I feel like that's exactly what bias does.

1.  Ok, let’s take some real-life Trumpian examples here.  Under what set of circumstances would it have been OK for Trump to make that crack about McCain?  Under what set of circumstances is it OK to do impersonations of hostile reporters who have physical disabilities?  Under what set of circumstances is it OK to talk about an opponent’s “stamina”, or suggest an opponent was poorly endowed, or suggest an opponent’s parent member was part of an assassination plot?  

There’s talking about issues; and there’s pointing out personal hypocracies—and then there’s just being a dipweed for its own sake. 

2.  I really don’t follow you here.

3.  We must not be quite connecting here.  Surely you don’t think that my personal contempt for (i.e. “bias against”) Hillary Clinton makes her right and me “wrong” on issues like taxation, health care, foreign policy, etc?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Ok, let’s take some real-life Trumpian examples here.  Under what set of circumstances would it have been OK for Trump to make that crack about McCain?  Under what set of circumstances is it OK to do impersonations of hostile reporters who have physical disabilities?  Under what set of circumstances is it OK to talk about an opponent’s “stamina”, or suggest an opponent was poorly endowed, or suggest an opponent’s parent member was part of an assassination plot?  

Yeah. The guy has issues. No questions. But that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong or that the things he says that are right should be viewed through the lens of the things he has said that are wrong.

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  I really don’t follow you here.

Sorry. I was trying to make the point that if Trump was a...what was your word...dipweed in some regard that does not justify the left putting out all it's lies and hatred, and the complaining about it (whining), is every bit as legitimate as if they were doing so without being tempted by the provocateur.

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  We must not be quite connecting here.  Surely you don’t think that my personal contempt for (i.e. “bias against”) Hillary Clinton makes her right and me “wrong” on issues like taxation, health care, foreign policy, etc?

I think we must define "bias" differently. I do not consider simple positive (as in your prior Joseph Smith example) or negative considerations of an item bias in and of itself. Bias, to my mind, is the consideration of something sans validity. Granted, what one thinks is bias may or may not be when truth is revealed -- but the point I am getting at is that I sense that you are judging Trump sometimes unfairly based on a dislike that, where, perhaps, valid against his character, does not extend to everything he says. The determination, as I see it, that certain things he says are wrong, I believe, would be viewed as perfectly acceptable if coming from a more likable character in your view. I know I'm reading into things a bit -- and it's only a perception -- and whether that perception is wrong or right may not make you see it as wrong or right (as we all tend towards blindness when it comes to bias). But that is what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share