Debate: Part 2 of 3

I have a chance now to respond to this bit of brilliance from Rick. At the outset, I'll demonstrate, yet again, how fair debating works. I'll quote Rick.. I'll copy and paste his actual writing, and make my points based on that.

That is what Doug refers to as "misquoting". I'll leave it up to anyone who reads this to decide whether or not my style of actually arguing with what Rick wrote is "misquoting" or not.

If you do have any interest in my Loon War, then you might want to read the thread to see what precipitated Ricks comment.

Christ laid down and let the Romans mow him over because His plan was not to fight, but to be crucified. He could have done anything, but that is not why He came. He came to be sacrificed. That part of His time on Earth was not His teachings, but the sacrifice He was willing to make for our salvation.

Rick was referring to my characterization of the Biblical Christ being a raging liberal and pacifist. Rick insists that the death of Jesus was "not His teaching", but I find that rather odd. Wasn't Christ' Crucifixion the point? Further, I don't recall any "teaching" of Christ that enjoined people to kick people's asses.

How could a person possibly claim that the Crucifixion of Christ was "not His teachings"? That was his seminal event! The answer, of course, is that the Loons pick and choose the parts of Christianity they like, and say the rest is "misinterpreted".

A good example is Matthew 19:21;

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Think Pat Robertson isn't filthy rich? Think Rick gave away his inheritance? Think the Loons don't immensely value personal wealth? Think they don't froth about "wealth redistribution"? The hypocrites simply don't like that part of Christianity, and ignore it, just as they ignore the pacifist nature of Christ.

Note - I'm not advocating a completely passive nature, but merely point this out as yet another hypocrisy of the right.

Truly, I find it odd that the Right Wing Loons have co-opted Jesus Christ as moral symbol, then turn around advocate the most provocative and militaristic foreign policy possible. They should be worshipping Mel "Fucking Jews" Gibson, not Jesus "Turn The Other Cheek" Christ.

Then, I asked if a Christian is more "moral" then a non-Christian, simply by definition.

I don't assume anyone is more moral, that is between them and God, but it is difficult to keep your eye on moral behavior when you have no faith or trust in He who is righteous. We all fall short of the glory of God. It is in our nature to be immoral, and without God we have a tendency to be immoral.

What a perfect example of defective reasoning that is so common on the right. First Rick says no one person is more moral then the other, then in the very same sentence, he says that religious people are more moral than those who are not. I'm used to seeing people contradict themselves in the same essay, or even sometimes in the same paragraph, but in the same sentence is taking it to a new level.

It is absurd to believe that understanding "moral behavior" is dependant on believing in a made up friend in the sky. It's patently absurd to think a person who believes in a God is more "moral" than an atheist. The vast majority of human beings understand, by instinct, what is "moral" and what is not. Even the majority of animals behave that way, which is why very few species in the world would harm others of their own species. It's a biological drive, and part of evolutionary process that encourages positive behavior within a species. It encourages survival.

It is NOT in our nature to be "immoral". If it were, there would never have been the rise of civilization, the rule of law, and overwhelming drive of compassion that we naturally feel for other human beings. The world would have descended into a never ending cycle of war on a mass scale. Immorality happens, but it is an abberation, and not the rule.

Rick, if you need "God" to be a moral person, then you were born with some defective genes. It simply comes naturally to the rest of us.

Still, this is part of the elitist nature of the religious. It's pure "heaven" and "hell". Christians get to go to heaven, everyone else doesn't. Christians are allowed to call themselves "righteous" because they are, by definition, more moral than unbelievers. It is the "us versus them" mentality that pervades every single aspect of their beings.

26 percenters? More than half of America claim there is a God and 52% believe what is transpiring was prophecied by the Bible.

Prophesied by the Bible? Oh.. My.. God.. don't tell me.. you're a rapture freak too? Holy shit, that's the best ever. I'm arguing with a rapture freak!

Please, Rick, if you only respond to one thing in this post.. I need to know if you actually believe the events in the Middle East are ushering in the Apocalypse? Please!

When I call you "26 percenters", I'm not referring to religion per se, but rather support of the Bush administration and it's war. These are the people that will support Bush regardless of any of his actions or policies, because they are not so much interested in effective government, but rather adherence to the right wing movement.

Congress in a Reuters poll just got an 11% approval rating. Sorry, bud, you are the one that is a member of the low percentile.

And why is that? Let's actually look, shall we?

Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.

And what does that mean?

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

We're really pissed off that our Congressmen are not doing what the American people want. It's that simple. Their ratings will rise when they start redeploying troops, and advancing a progressive agenda. Basically, they need to tell Bush to stuff it.

Doug told us to shut up, that's why he only visits your site when I tell him of particularly vile stuff you write. In fact, he told me he's praying for you. Personally, I'd rather just kick your ass. But then again, that would be wrong. Doug tells me to take the high road, but you just piss me off too much.

I assume you can think and act for yourself? I get that Doug is the Loon Leader, but seriously.. how well that fits the pattern of authoritarian worship so common on the right.

Me, vile? This ring a bell?

There couldn't be anything worse than Liberalism. You Liberals rate right up there with Nazis, Pol Pot, Fascism, Joseph Stalin's Communism, Klu Klux Klan.

I've written this a ton, and not a peep from you loons how you could possibly justify such accusations. It really pisses me off, and that's why I insult you stupid fuckers when the opportunity presents itself. You mother fuckers are so fucking insane, vile, and hateful, and you hide behind your Jesus and pretend that you're on some sort of grand mission from God, or some shit.

I'm angry about your constant accusations, and mischaracterizations, and lying, and that's why I document this shit here... and I could care fucking less whether Doug reads it or not. He's simply a propagandist, and honesty and integrity have nothing to do with his mission. That's why he never quotes me, and never actually substantiates his arguments. He just states shit as if it's a commonly known fact, and most often he's lying. I've written about this over and over and over, and now that asshole is deleting my simple questions on his own blog.

Hell, part 1 of the debate, I spent totally trashing Doug's lying, by providing factual information, sourced from the government. This is why that coward won't debate me. He knows he'll get creamed, and cries with a flood of tears that I will use "trickery" to crush him. I swear to god, he actually used the word "trickery". Is he still living in the 5th grade? That's about the level of his writing anyway.

If I tried my best, on my Right Wing Loon blog, to try and emulate Doug's insanity, I couldn't possibly come up with this;

And a particular liberal, the one that calls me his favorite right wing loon, has challenged me to a debate. I am sure he will read this, and of course he will misunderstand or mischaracterize my answer. I shall decline such challenge. Not because I don't think I can out debate you. Substance and Truth will always prevail over trickery by folks such as you. However, I have learned the hard way that liberals don't play fair, and in the end, such a debate can only wind up bad.

Don't play fair? You mean, because I know how to fucking use Google? God damn.. I'm used to seeing the pee stains spread on Doug's trousers, but he's afraid of debating a stupid "libtard" like me? He's afraid to argue against what I actually said instead of just paraphrasing it?

Substance and Truth? He cites absolutely nothing when making factual assertions, and then turns around and tries to claim he doesn't need to because it's "opinion" writing.

And you wonder why I call Doug a shitty writer? You wonder why I think you assholes are vile? You wonder why I say "fuck your god"? You are dishonest, and the most vile form of Americans that would label your political opponents as "traitors"..

And you wanting to "kick my ass" is just icing on the cake. You have no substance, just ideology, and deep down, you know it. If I reveal your own intellectual failings, and it makes you violent, so much the better. I just don't think your movement should be given any credibility because this isn't a boxing match, it's politics.

If you are so good, then why do you spend time writing about Doug so much? Pick a more worthy opponent if you think he's such a poor writer and such. See, I think that's where you lie. He is a worthy opponent, and a good writer, otherwise, you'd go elsewhere.

I've explained this many times.. but I like Doug and the Loon Brigade because it really is hard to find people with such arch typical neo-conservative, bible thumping, beliefs. There would be much less contrast if I argued with somebody who was sane.

So, I guess that Doug has tacked, as I predicted, into just trying to ignore me, and instructing his minions do the same. I think Doug might be able to keep it up for a while, but he'll drop some note or other on my blog soon enough bitching about something I wrote about him. I don't think the Loon Brigade will be able to resist the battle.. and I certainly hope you crazy fucks don't shut up.. because it won't be as much fun if all I do is shred Doug's inane ramblings.

Oh.. and Doug, I imagine Rick might have pointed you to this one.. and I know it's really hard to resist reading what somebody is saying about you (that's human nature), I didn't comment again on your blog until after you dropped notes on mine. Once again, you are a hypocritical asshole, reacting to your fear by censoring simple dialog on your blog.

If you ask me.. that's a pathetic excuse for a man.