NationStates

Benuty wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:>> when you spend your formative teen years reading theology and philosophy books in your very Catholic grandmother's library
>> but you know nothing about Catholicism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I thought you had a more evangelical background?

My mother was an evangelical, but I got out of the religion in my teens - not coincidentally, that's when I started reading those books. I've referenced that one side of my family is very Catholic on here before, I believe.

Conserative Morality wrote:>> when you spend your formative teen years reading theology and philosophy books in your very Catholic grandmother's library
>> but you know nothing about Catholicism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

‘I went to a Catholic School ecksdee Im an expert’
‘I once read Bushido and I am an expert on japan’

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:No one who's smart believes this.

On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

No one who's correct or right believes this.

Guess u weren’t the only one to do that bud

Minzerland II wrote:‘I went to a Catholic School ecksdee Im an expert’
‘I once read Bushido and I am an expert on japan’

>> when you never once said you were an expert or anything close, only that you knew enough for a compare and contrast of two very different and very prominent councils

I'm sorry, I literally know nothing. I feel very Socratic at the moment.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Where do liberals lie in this conflict?

Realistic answer: in the ditch cuz both sides hate you lol
Hopeful answer: as a third faction trying to restore normalcy

That's how it ended up last time.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

No one who's correct or right believes this.

Then you must face the simple fact that the vast majority of people are not correct or right on every issue, and as such, the idea that moderation on its own merits will not result in horrendous compromises is simply an untenable position.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

No one who's correct or right believes this.

I hate to be that person, but let's take this rabbit hole even further. You can be a person who is right or correct, and still, be wrong on some things. For example, the man (Norman Borlaug) who pretty much prevented the Malthusian apocalypse from manifesting in the 1970s, and 1980s thought global warming was utter nonsense.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:‘I went to a Catholic School ecksdee Im an expert’
‘I once read Bushido and I am an expert on japan’

>> when you never once said you were an expert or anything close, only that you knew enough for a compare and contrast of two very different and very prominent councils

I'm sorry, I literally know nothing. I feel very Socratic at the moment.

That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

Genivaria wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Realistic answer: in the ditch cuz both sides hate you lol
Hopeful answer: as a third faction trying to restore normalcy

That's how it ended up last time.

Okay but this time, no lend-lease to the commies.

Truman in 1941 wrote:If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.

Genivaria wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Realistic answer: in the ditch cuz both sides hate you lol
Hopeful answer: as a third faction trying to restore normalcy

That's how it ended up last time.

That's in part due to the fact a part of said faction decided to play "neutrality". Had either ideology taken over from the inside of the United States any attempts at a return to normalcy would have died. Instead, the world might have a nightmare cold war scenario between an extremist U.S picking off the corpses of empires, and whoever won.

Minzerland II wrote:That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

Mind pointing out where I pretended I was an expert? I am sure that you can do so and are not just sore about the fact that I have a different opinion on a matter of theology than you. I am assured of this. Of this I am assured.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

No one who's correct or right believes this.

Oh, is morality objective again?

Minzerland II wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:>> when you never once said you were an expert or anything close, only that you knew enough for a compare and contrast of two very different and very prominent councils

I'm sorry, I literally know nothing. I feel very Socratic at the moment.

That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

When did insulting people you disagree with become a valid argument?

Genivaria wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

When did insulting people you disagree with become a valid argument?

Whenever you don’t have an actual argument, obviously.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

Mind pointing out where I pretended I was an expert? I am sure that you can do so and are not just sore about the fact that I have a different opinion on a matter of theology than you. I am assured of this. Of this I am assured.

‘Let me tell you about the VII, japanese lady, it’s really progressive and I only “know” enough to compare with VI but I’m certain my qualifications, that is, my grandmamas library, will attest to the accuracy of my opinion on VII’

Genivaria wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:That’s really the problem, though, you know nothing, just like every other tradcat or progressive that surfs these stupid forums, but you have an obsession with pretending to be an expert on shit

When did insulting people you disagree with become a valid argument?

I’m a tradcat you dunce

Minzerland II wrote:‘Let me tell you about the VII, japanese lady, it’s really progressive

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything close to that. But I see you are very sore about the issue of me having an opinion on anything related to Catholicism.

and I only “know” enough to compare with VI but I’m certain my qualifications, that is, my grandmamas library, will attest to the accuracy of my opinion on VII’

Sorry that you think that reading isn't a valid source of general knowledge.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

No one who's correct or right believes this.

Or, alternatively, you're not correct and people who do believe this are.

Minzerland II wrote:

Genivaria wrote:When did insulting people you disagree with become a valid argument?

I’m a tradcat you dunce

Wait... so then... by the standards of your own post, you know nothing as well?

This is getting too Socratic for me. How can you dispute knowledge of an issue if you lack knowledge on the issue?

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:I’m a tradcat you dunce

Wait... so then... by the standards of your own post, you know nothing as well?

This is getting too Socratic for me. How can you dispute the knowledge of an issue if you lack knowledge on the issue?

By that measure lack of knowledge is generally considered the supreme form of knowledge as we all know.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:‘Let me tell you about the VII, japanese lady, it’s really progressive

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything close to that. But I see you are very sore about the issue of me having an opinion on anything related to Catholicism.

and I only “know” enough to compare with VI but I’m certain my qualifications, that is, my grandmamas library, will attest to the accuracy of my opinion on VII’

Sorry that you think that reading isn't a valid source of general knowledge.

Hmmm ‘liberal reformation of Catholicism’

went to Catholic school tier shit mate

Benuty wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Wait... so then... by the standards of your own post, you know nothing as well?

This is getting too Socratic for me. How can you dispute the knowledge of an issue if you lack knowledge on the issue?

By that measure lack of knowledge is generally considered the supreme form of knowledge as we all know.

I love the Socratic method, but god do I hate that particular idea.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Hanafuridake wrote:Are all Catholics and Muslims conservatives?

Is there a point to this question?

Yes, considering it's strange to bring up all religious people when we're specifically talking about conservatives.

Conserative Morality wrote:For someone who talks so much about eastern religions, you seem to know precious little about them. Five of the six OG schools of Hinduism are very compatible with liberal modernity.

You didn't just claim that they were compatible with liberalism, you claimed they were liberal.

That's because Hinduism has had liberal schools from the start,

Which I have a hard time believing because it sounds like the claim that Jesus was a Communist.

Conserative Morality wrote:As they say in modern Japan, born Shinto, marry Christian, die Buddhist. I notice as well that you left out the biggest and most modern Buddhist majority country, in which over half of all Buddhists live. There wouldn't happen to be a reason for that, would there? =^^^)

I'm not actually going to bother getting into the history of the concept of Shintoism and why I think it's an historical meme that's harmful to understanding Japanese history, and how the concept itself developed from Buddhism, because it would be wasted effort.

Because I don't know that much about China's historical relationship with Buddhism past the 9th century? I also left out Korea, Mongolia, etc.

Conserative Morality wrote:I don't know much about the countries listed, so you could be right. But I doubt it.

The Sri Lankan constitution enshrines Buddhism a special place similar to the Church of England in the United Kingdom, Sinhalese nationalism comes from the belief that the Buddha entrusted pure Theravada Buddhism to them and not other countries. Theravada Buddhism in Thailand has been closely tied with the concept of Thainess and there have been calls for it to be made the state religion, one of the duties of the Thai monarchy is to defend the sangha (the Buddhist community). The birth of Burmese nationalism is closely tied to the Young Men's Buddhist Association, and I don't even think I have to get into how Tibet has been ruled for hundreds of years by the avatar of a Buddhist deity.

Benuty wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Wait... so then... by the standards of your own post, you know nothing as well?

This is getting too Socratic for me. How can you dispute the knowledge of an issue if you lack knowledge on the issue?

By that measure lack of knowledge is generally considered the supreme form of knowledge as we all know.

But if you understand that you lack knowledge, do you no longer lack knowledge?