Christian privilege invisible to privileged Christians

 Adding to your paragraph on the Crusades:
The crusaders also pillaged, raped, and killed Christians – by the time the crusades got to the Eastern empire, they were after money and land even more than ‘recovering the holy land’. (I understand that many of those in the earlier crusades were younger sons, and it was an opportunity to make their fortune.)

You know, maybe it’s just me, but someone who ends almost every argument with things like “They aren’t because they just aren’t” and “it never happens because it just doesn’t”…just doesn’t seem like someone who’s any fun to debate with. Although I’m learning a lot of things from the various bits of history and evidence people are posting…it still kind of boggles me that it’s all in response to someone who thinks “It Just Is” is any sort of convincing or satisfactory answer to, well, anything.

About thirty percent of the population was loyalist, about thirty percent was neutral, and the rest were rebels. Or Patriots. (I think I have ancestors from both sides. At least one of mine got hit with a fine for being a ‘non-jure’ in 1776 and 1777, on the order of 5 or 10 pounds sterling.)

Who’s Adam Weishaupt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

The founder of the Bavarian Illuminati.  (Of course, anyone even REMOTELY well-informed knows that he was merely the latest in a long string of front-men for the TRUE Illuminati from their headquarters withing the Hollow Earth fnord.)

Why do you think News Corp, whose second biggest shareholder is a Saudi
prince, constantly run anti-Muslim stuff in all their news publications?

A slight correction: as I understand, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud is the second-biggest shardeholder in News Corp outside of the Murdoch family, not the second-biggest shareholder period.

Furthering your argument, note that Fox News coverage of how Eeevil the Cordoba House supporters were involved their having received support from a Saudi Prince who has also supported Wahabbist madrasses. They didn’t mention that said prince was the aforementioned Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud.

I don’t know if the prince had any knowledge or say in that reporting, but the fact that he said nothing about it certainly supports your argument.

Oh no doubt – it was terrible violence all around. But I wasn’t arguing that the violence was not ‘equal opportunity’ violence, merely that simplistic arguments that ‘Group X is inherently violence and group Y is not’ are not very useful – or accurate.

It’s just a very sad kind of argument – “These people are inherently evil” – which is where most of Beatrix’s points fall to. I’m not going to talk to her further, as she is not interested in listening, period. That, and the statement about (to paraphrase) – people who know military and political matters a lot better that I, argued to just nuked the whole of Afghanistan.

I agree – there are terrible practices going on there, but hey, just very glad that neither those ‘experts’, or nukes where around at the height of US slave practices. They might have taken out that fledgling country before it addressed the terrible practice itself.

The whole argument that ANY group is a complete waste and not worth a measure of life and liberty, that it is iherently ‘evil’ or violent or both is bigotry, nothing less.

Trolls often don’t agree with what they say, thjey just like kicking up fuss. I don’t think that she feels like a Troll to me – more someone who believes what she says. I disagree with much of what she says but I also disagree with any limit on her right to speak it.

The net is increasingly becoming Balkanised these days and that damages dialog between the very divergent views that should most engage with each other.

One site I used to on, a roleplay site, have community forums. I, and others, would post things we found interesting – not to bait anyone, but to foster discussion. Anyone not interested in those political threads could ignore them. I’m gay, transgendered and otherwise not quite ‘normal’ (like there is such a thing beyond delusion by consensus) – and some of my discussions would roll over such topics.

There were some extremely bigoted and nasty folk that replied – one in particular. I,however, did not care – as it offered the ability to pull apart arguments and engage in interesting debate. But – a lot of complaints to the mods later, some from the bigots, others from those tired of the same circular arguments and some who “did not mind that stuff – but felt there were more appropriate places on the net for it to be discussed.”

So – an executive order went out. No more discussions on politics, gender, homosexuality etc … anything that wasn’t directed board related. Now that’s fair enough, if you get rid of the community forum and don’t allow ANY discussion not directly board related.

But no – that didn’t happen. So I left. I won’t be told to go have such discussions in the ‘appropriate places’ – as that’s nothing more than a digital version of ghettoisation.

So yeah, my view is it should all be opened up much more. Have rules to warn people if they get personal in posts, but not for the content, as long as it’s roughly on topic, no matter how much one might disagree with that content.

My 2 cents anyways

Thanks for the correction!

It means we can have conversations between anursa (who is not a troll)
on the conservative side and Izzy (also not a troll) on the liberal side
and the worst thing that happens is a bit of foul language.

I’ve never considered those two to be anything other than regulars. They’ve never intentionally posted hateful & incendiary comments and they don’t post the first bigoted thing to come to their minds.

I know I’ve been guilty myself of posting inflammatory comments, but in my defense it’s usually a gut reaction to trolls and responses to the people Fred is talking about. I do try to censor myself, but not always successfully.

All absolutes are false… except this one… and some others.

Why is it whenever Christian privilege in Canada and (particularly) the USA is brought up someone always brings up the situation in the Middle East as though that kind of derailing tactic can’t be recognized for what it is?

 Today, the developed world (at the very least) is governed under a paradigm which hews to each and every one of the planks in that platform.

I’m fairly confident this has been addressed. But just in case it hasn’t, let’s go through that handily bullet-point-style document and check.

. . . . and away we go!

- Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.”

See every L.B. post on why this does not describe the modern world.

- Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.

Close to achieved, though the pendulum may yet swing. Also, specific to the U.S.A., so cannot apply to “the developed world (at the very least).”

- Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.

Depends on your definition of strong. Responsibility to Protect theory represents a new limitation on sovereignty, (in theory) but is not particularly enforced. The developed world hasn’t toppled Horn of Africa gov’ts in the face of recent famine, for example. Also, “immediate” renders this one sort of a moot point.

- International control of all armies & navies. 

Haha, ha ha ha ha. Note most recently the rightist U.S.A. angst over China’s first aircraft carrier.

- ”A universal system of money … so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.”

See every L.B. post on why this does not describe the modern world.- Worldwide freedom of immigration.See the U.S.-Mexico border on why this does not describe the modern world.- Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.Substantially achieved, though it turned out to support a rather different political ideology.- ”Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples. (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.)”More or less achieved, yup.- “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.”Actually was not achieved in the aftermath of WWII; though punitive reparations and humiliating decrees of war guilt got a bad rap, both Germany and Korea were arbitrarily dismembered. And the ongoing debate in China over the sufficiency of Japanese apologies for their wartime actions, particularly in Nanjing, show that the desire behind war guilt decrees is alive and well. Still, we’ll count this as a half point.- “A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.”"Tricky, that. The IMF and World Bank exist, but whether they’ve escaped being predatory and imperial . . . . is a big argument.So, out of the 10 listed, 4 have not been remotely achieved and are objects of derision, 3 have been achieved only partially (with levels of achievement varying from fairly thorough to extremely limited), and 3 have been substantially achieved–though often due to forces *opposed* to the other goals of the manifesto writers. You’re wrong about whether or not these principles rule the world. They may be popular in some of it, particularly where you live, but they do not rule in the slightest. Your reactionary stance is unnecessary; history does not need to be stood athwart. It is moving moderately in this direction, not overwhelmingly. Aaron, I hate to say it, but I think you’re engaged in the same persecution complex the post describes. The modern world does NOT hew to this platform. (The platform also fails to represent Protestantism generally (especially globally) in any meaningful sense, and many of its points were established by Jewish socialists and communists long before these Johnny-Come-Lately (as opposed to Yohanatan-Gets-There-on-Time) Protestant leaders proposed them.)

s’ok. Maybe try splitting that post up? Then you can straighten up the HTML.

Ah, yes, the old, “not as bad as it could be” fallacy cited in Derailing for Dummies.