The Case For The Republican Party

It’s pretty compelling:

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • Abram

    I don’t agree at all with the values of the Republican party either. But these kinds of counter marketing schemes that besmear the names of opponent parties are just exhausting. (Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert are the only two that successfully get away with it, because the comedy is sophisticated and sharp, and they are not partisan vloggers, they’re comedians, and besides that, they broadcast well-researched political parodies, not slander campaigns like this one, which are based on comedically over-simplified and demonized versions of opponent parties.)

    And people who say things like I am saying right now can easily be packaged and shipped as sensitive moderates or ‘conservatives’–but I don’t subscribe to either of those. I’m actually very left-leaning. The difference is, I’m also a person who has the perhaps stupidly optimistic belief that if we just have candid conversations with one another about what we think is actually true (and if politicians would find it in themselves to admit when they’re wrong every once in a while) then Theocrats might realize how stupid they are and saucy liberal wasps might realize how nasty they can be, we’d start to allow the richness of collaboration float towards the top of the political playground (and of course, we need to remove the “for sale” tag on the government).

    But as it is, fundamentalist Christians walk around on egg shells, in denial about their blatant prejudice, unless Sarah Palin is in the room (who’s politics for dummies version of political campaign I think is a disservice to the tea party) and angry, flippant liberals (like me) still go to church and sit in pews with spiritual duct tape across their mouths–refusing to make objections or ask questions.

    The scientific reductionists ought to admit that human flourishing and fulfillment is not as simple as neurons firing on a circuit board, and the paranoid Christians MUST realize that their three thousand year old Jewish law no longer retains the same relevance it once did.

    In other words, I’m pro-gay marriage (I’d like to have a husband one day), non-religious, and believe in government ‘stewardship’ even if it reminds us of socialism (so what if it does?)–But I’m desperate for someone who has a legitimate argument for libertarianism–with demonstrable evidence–and people with brains who disagree with gay marriage to really give a good reason! And maybe we could get over this verbal grenade slinging and start turning this adolescent country into a young adult country. A country that doesn’t use the term “agree to disagree” as a way to deny a collaborative truth to release us from childish prejudice. (I hate that term. Agree to disagree means to me: I win because I can end the conversation. Or it means: there is no real truth, only opinion, so I can’t lose, which is flaccid, hopeless relativism.)

  • http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=46756&pst=1326413&saved=1 strivectin products

    I found your weblog website on google and examine a couple of of your early posts. Continue to maintain up the superb operate. I just further up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Searching for forward to reading extra from you in a while!…


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X