The list is a grab bag of conspiracy theorist and libertarian talking points that I am almost convinced is not meant to be serious. Here is my take:...8. You know that the endgame is one-world control of planet Earth: Is it even really necessary to mention how the NWO crowd has discredited themselves in the eyes of the majority? Anyone that is too strident about anything will be ignored by all except fellow travelers and the NWO meme is no different from anything else.
While I don't agree with everything on the list (or even most of it), I don't think it's all "conspiracy theory". For example, #8 - do you really think that people/groups do not exist which would desire to have control over the planet if they so had the opportunity? Take a look at the issue of global warming, and the implementation of global taxation. To me, this sounds like it's an attempt by a singular group of rulers desiring to exert its control over the entire globe. No, this may not be a plan for global domination at this stage, but what kind of dictatorship begins all at once? Alternatively, what do hard core Muslims want? Would they desire control over the entire globe? While I do not think that global domination is inevitable or feasible in the near future, I am nevertheless fearful that certain forces would like to accomplish this in the long run.And just to stir the pot a bit, this was on Drudge today. Listen to the first sentence or two by Biden:[html][youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1AMYHHAXhI?rel=0&w=480&h=360%5D%5B/html%5D
Ha, that is funny, I guess. In my Masters classes I had the opportunity to study some of the relatively modern developments in urban settings, so I think it's kind of cool. And when I lived in Texas, I visited a few different places which also had artificial canals (Las Colinas; San Antonio). Also, I have dreams of possibly developing my own commercial subdivision if I ever win the lottery.
Both ends of the political spectrum are doing this. I think conservatives tend to be a little more open about wanting to legislate morals with regards to such things as abortion and contraception on demand but they still do it nonetheless. There are two sides to every moral argument and like every other political issue both sides of the aisle are so busy making noise they cannot and do not hear the other side. This lack of communication is just a symptom of what is wrong and not the cause though.
What I meant was that liberals accuse conservatives of trying to legislate morality, but I don't think they would admit to doing it themselves. I do not recall hearing this same criticism lodged against liberals by conservatives. Part of this whole discussion revolves around semantics. Some people equate "morals" with religious precepts, which most people agree are not enforceable. The problem is that they are not necessarily equivalent. Murder is morally wrong, and it is also wrong according to religious precepts, but I would not say that society deems murder wrong simply because of this religious precept.At the end of the day, confusion about the terms has led to problems in the way the issues are framed.
I actually think that liberals and conservatives can both honestly agree that they desire to legislate morality. Both sides would agree that punishing murder is good, and that it in effect legislates morality. IMO, liberals differ from conservatives in that the former does not view morality as being rooted in anything permanent or objective, but instead as something changing across cultures and time. I think this is true in some relative aspects of morality, but not its absolute aspects. I think the criticism of "legislating morality" is really rooted in political rhetoric which sounds good on its face, but which is actually intellectually untruthful. I think that there are honest liberals who would agree that this criticism is therefore in error.
I just find it amusing that anybody thinks either side of the political divide has a lock on legislating morality. Isn't legislating morality at the heart of law itself?
I agree with you if you mean that both political sides are attempting to legislate morality. One side, however, would probably not admit that it is doing this, but blames the other side for doing it.
Yes, that is true by a mile. But I think if we consider Venice, California as the creation of a distinct late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century vision, it can appreciated in its own right. What impresses me is that it was decades ahead of its time. When I think of urban developments which incorporate canals or “new urbanism” concepts, I think of post-1980s America rather than nearly a century earlier.
5. You understand that government can never legislate morality, nor should they: Isn't it conservatives who are largely trying to do this now in response to the Democrats successful efforts at same over the past 50+ years? Conservatives are losing the battle for the soul of America and rather than try and compete with the materialism and narcissism of the left in the battle of ideas they are now trying to legislate their morality into practice. Shouldn't we as conservatives spend more time trying to show and convince people that leftist post-modernism is destructive of a functioning society and win that battle among the people where it counts instead of wailing about how the media and government is against us. I think I remember such efforts at convincing being called witnessing. It seems to me that most conservatives and religious spend an inordinate amount of time being righteous about how good they are instead of trying to show others how fulfilling the correct moral path can be.
I find this whole issue of allowing/not allowing the legislation of morality to be somewhat unbelievable. Can we technically force morality on anyone? No, unless perhaps we drug them and duct tape them to their chairs to prevent them from moving/thinking on their own. Can we facilitate morality? Yes, I think this is obvious with any criminal law. The fact that we punish murder, theft, fraud, etc. is an indication that we find these things morally wrong and is an attempt to curb such actions.
It might make sense even today for certain states to break apart. Upstate NY and the city/Long Island is a good example. In that list, I find it interesting to hear about the Southern states which didn't want to break off with the Confederacy during the Civil War.
How much do you want to bet that the producers find a way to spice things up so that the historians/actors make Da Vinci Codesque “discoveries” involving scandal or intrigue during the course of the shooting?
Plato was definitely not awake. He was the biggest dreamer of all with his stupid Philosopher King crapola. He wouldn't know how to wear a tin-foil hat if somebody gave him the directions. He would just ask an endless number of questions until he infuriated everyone. At least Aristotle had more on the ball than his teacher.
Whoa whoa whoa! You just threw one of the best allegories of realty of all time under the bus! If you didn't recognize the genius of Plato's approach (read: Socratic method) then you are missing out on one of the greats in the history of Western philosophy. Oh, and Plato is much more readable than Aristotle because of it, IMO. I see that you are still chained to the inside of the cave. ???