There are some common links between Ahmadinejad & conservatives (in the US) when it comes to education-policy (so it seems).

In the US the debate focuses on evolution/creationism.
The same with Iran; he wants to get rid of non-religious education.
When they say he wants to get rid of 'liberal' professors; it means he wants 'his children' to stay as far away as possible from principles like democracy, freedom, etc.

The common link? Favoritism of religion, inspired by religion, for the sake of religion instead of a reasonable (& free) discussion & an honest search for the truth.

They both want to impose their (religious) views on anybody living under their rule. They choose for paternalis...

There are some common links between Ahmadinejad & conservatives (in the US) when it comes to education-policy (so it seems).

In the US the debate focuses on evolution/creationism.
The same with Iran; he wants to get rid of non-religious education.
When they say he wants to get rid of 'liberal' professors; it means he wants 'his children' to stay as far away as possible from principles like democracy, freedom, etc.

The common link? Favoritism of religion, inspired by religion, for the sake of religion instead of a reasonable (& free) discussion & an honest search for the truth.

They both want to impose their (religious) views on anybody living under their rule. They choose for paternalism.
Keeping the masses ignorant & stupid is a very old trick and religion is one of the means to reach that goal.

And indeed, egoldstein, that quote you pulled from willhelms comment is some serious doublethinking

egoldstein, you may disagree with willhelm, but he's right on the money on this one. This is precisely what conservatives want.

The reason we're 'failing' in Iraq is because we're dancing instead of fighting a war as we're suppose to be doing. It's the same reason that Israel didn't do what they set out to do in Lebanon.

And djiezes, your comments about religion aren't totally faulty, but you're equating conservatism with religion and in many cases (as in mine) - that's just not the case. I'm a card carrying conservative and proud of it, but after being brought up in an atheist country - it's hard to impossible to be 'religious' in its real sense. I don't look down on anyone religiou...

egoldstein, you may disagree with willhelm, but he's right on the money on this one. This is precisely what conservatives want.

The reason we're 'failing' in Iraq is because we're dancing instead of fighting a war as we're suppose to be doing. It's the same reason that Israel didn't do what they set out to do in Lebanon.

And djiezes, your comments about religion aren't totally faulty, but you're equating conservatism with religion and in many cases (as in mine) - that's just not the case. I'm a card carrying conservative and proud of it, but after being brought up in an atheist country - it's hard to impossible to be 'religious' in its real sense. I don't look down on anyone religious, nor do I subscribe to atheist approach to life, but just because someone's conservative - doesn't mean they're religious and I'll bet you I'm not the only one.

Also, it's ridiculous to equate conservatism and conservaists with extreme right. The extreme right are people like hitler and 'ah-i-have-the-job' and I'm completely and vehemently opposed to people like that and I'll stick my neck out on the limb and say that even though I don't know him, I'm pretty confident that willhelm would join me in this sentiment.

Same would be true for the left. I have a tremendous respect for Bill Gates because of his 'liberalism' and nothing but lack of respect for people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for their version of liberalism.

Might I remind you that in many place sin the US, the Conservative right is trying to get evolution replaces by ID?

You are not telliing the truth!!! The fact is there is a move to have it taught side by side. However, I disagree with that. On the other hand Evolution is taught as fact not theory. So you see, that is indoctrination, not an honest exchange of ideas. So you are the one proposing an agenda in education and wanting to ""forbid teachings""! The left is limiting the exchange of ideas (namely ID). By the way if you do your reserch on the subject, the scientific adherents of ID are growing, while evolution is showing more serious problems and losing adherrnts.

A...

Might I remind you that in many place sin the US, the Conservative right is trying to get evolution replaces by ID?

You are not telliing the truth!!! The fact is there is a move to have it taught side by side. However, I disagree with that. On the other hand Evolution is taught as fact not theory. So you see, that is indoctrination, not an honest exchange of ideas. So you are the one proposing an agenda in education and wanting to ""forbid teachings""! The left is limiting the exchange of ideas (namely ID). By the way if you do your reserch on the subject, the scientific adherents of ID are growing, while evolution is showing more serious problems and losing adherrnts.

Again:

It is the Liberals that purge with their insidious lableing, revisionism, moral equivalency, union thuggery and political correctness.

It's quite a long journey. German metaphysics is the basis for almost all evils of modern time from slavery, socilalism, fascism, communism, to the environmental movement, post-modern humanism. They all projected from Kantian metaphysics that we cannot know waht is real. This led to the the German thinkers that followed spouting all sorts of rational for man's inability to know truth, beauty, and good. This culminated in Hegel's "superman theory". The superman theory led to the evolution theories. (sidenote, I do not disagree with natural selection on a micro scale, but macro has problems and has 0 proof.)
Anyway, It is historical fact that Hitler used Hegel's superman theory as a basis for...

It's quite a long journey. German metaphysics is the basis for almost all evils of modern time from slavery, socilalism, fascism, communism, to the environmental movement, post-modern humanism. They all projected from Kantian metaphysics that we cannot know waht is real. This led to the the German thinkers that followed spouting all sorts of rational for man's inability to know truth, beauty, and good. This culminated in Hegel's "superman theory". The superman theory led to the evolution theories. (sidenote, I do not disagree with natural selection on a micro scale, but macro has problems and has 0 proof.)
Anyway, It is historical fact that Hitler used Hegel's superman theory as a basis forhis "master race" theory. He even passed out pamphlets praising these theories.
We see the modern results of all thes movements in their current forms (excluding crematoriums) in the ideas that even today we cannot know truth. Everything is relative to the perceiver. The post modern view of the world is the champion of this view, which leads to rationaizing evils of abortion, humanism, the effort to discard the scientific method in favor of scientific consensus (global warming, multiple universus, macro evolution), the restriction of speech by imposing political correctness etc, etc. All thes ideas have at their bases the idea that truth is subjective and not rational. This is a very short synopsis. I could go much more in depth, but I haven't the time and doubt anyone here is really interested in propositional truth. This IS the realm of subjective truth.

This culminated in Hegel's "superman theory". The superman theory led to the evolution theories. (sidenote, I do not disagree with natural selection on a micro scale, but macro has problems and has 0 proof.) Anyway, It is historical fact that Hitler used Hegel's superman theory as a basis for his "master race" theory. He even passed out pamphlets praising these theories.

I know little about philosophy, but what I do know suggests this is wrong. Nietzsche, not Hegel, talked about supermen. Darwin published On the Origin of Species of By Natural Selection in 1859, when Nietzsche was 15 years old. The Nazis glommed on to Nietzsche (thanks to his sister, who edited Ni...

This culminated in Hegel's "superman theory". The superman theory led to the evolution theories. (sidenote, I do not disagree with natural selection on a micro scale, but macro has problems and has 0 proof.) Anyway, It is historical fact that Hitler used Hegel's superman theory as a basis for his "master race" theory. He even passed out pamphlets praising these theories.

I know little about philosophy, but what I do know suggests this is wrong. Nietzsche, not Hegel, talked about supermen. Darwin published On the Origin of Species of By Natural Selection in 1859, when Nietzsche was 15 years old. The Nazis glommed on to Nietzsche (thanks to his sister, who edited Nietzsche's work to make it more consistent with Nazism) but that is not the same thing as saying that Nietschze formed the "basis" for Nazism's master race theories. In fact Nietzsche condemned anti-semitism.

wiil, omg.. you are nuts

Common retort from someonoe with absolutely no clue.

Didn't some post rules of arguments? that broke at least 2 of them

German metaphysics is the basis for almost all evils of modern time from slavery, socilalism, fascism, communism, to the environmental movement, post-modern humanism.

Um, you are lumping tehenvironmental movement in with slavery? And another thing: how is "German metaphysics" responsible for slvaery? Slavery existed LONG before germany!!!

The environmental movement is no more evil than the industrial movement... I suppose you also think Global warming is a crock

You've already screwed the pooch on y...

wiil, omg.. you are nuts

Common retort from someonoe with absolutely no clue.

Didn't some post rules of arguments? that broke at least 2 of them

German metaphysics is the basis for almost all evils of modern time from slavery, socilalism, fascism, communism, to the environmental movement, post-modern humanism.

Um, you are lumping tehenvironmental movement in with slavery? And another thing: how is "German metaphysics" responsible for slvaery? Slavery existed LONG before germany!!!

The environmental movement is no more evil than the industrial movement... I suppose you also think Global warming is a crock

You've already screwed the pooch on your "historical facts" maybe you should go read some more and then come back & argue (ok.. so i broke a rule or two with that statement too )

Willhelm,

Maybe my English is to blame here, but I did not question your existence. This is what I meant with "are you for real?":
"Do you actually believe this absolute nonsense you just uttered (the educating of homosexual virtues, the touching of Uncle Billy's penis, and the 'left', environmentalists, liberals & post-modernists being the root of all evil)?"

I asked this because I'm starting to think you're playing us all. I'm actually starting to think you don't really believe all this, but just say it to make people who share some of those opinions look ridiculous.
Maybe this is because something in me refuses to believe that someone actually follows such a pattern of thought.

So, n...

Willhelm,

Maybe my English is to blame here, but I did not question your existence. This is what I meant with "are you for real?":
"Do you actually believe this absolute nonsense you just uttered (the educating of homosexual virtues, the touching of Uncle Billy's penis, and the 'left', environmentalists, liberals & post-modernists being the root of all evil)?"

I asked this because I'm starting to think you're playing us all. I'm actually starting to think you don't really believe all this, but just say it to make people who share some of those opinions look ridiculous.
Maybe this is because something in me refuses to believe that someone actually follows such a pattern of thought.

So, no reason to pull a Descartes on me here. I believe you exist. After all, it's highly probable you exist, because you have commented here. It's not likely you are a non-existent entity.
It's the thinking part I'm not really convinced of.

All you have is venom.

Who has been the person who has been telling those who express astonishment at his arguments that they have "no ability to think"? That they have no intellect? Who has been writing comments that drip with condescension towards those who are not convinced by his sweeping generalizations and assertions?

I submit to you that you are treating these discussions way too seriously. Really, there is no need to put down other users. I sincerely doubt that these interactions we have on Clipmarks has changed anyone's mind about anything. There probably isn't anyone reading this who thinks that we have helped clarify their thinking about liberalism, much...

All you have is venom.

Who has been the person who has been telling those who express astonishment at his arguments that they have "no ability to think"? That they have no intellect? Who has been writing comments that drip with condescension towards those who are not convinced by his sweeping generalizations and assertions?

I submit to you that you are treating these discussions way too seriously. Really, there is no need to put down other users. I sincerely doubt that these interactions we have on Clipmarks has changed anyone's mind about anything. There probably isn't anyone reading this who thinks that we have helped clarify their thinking about liberalism, much less 18th and 19th German philosophy!

I'm not saying you are the only person who has put down others in this thread, but in my view your comments in this thread (and in general) are the harshest and the most condescending. Whatever emotional energy you spend to write this stuff isn't worth it, and I think the discussions would be more fun, for both yourself and for others, if you resisted the impulse to denigrate others. By all means express your views, and if you find someone else dismissing your arguments, you can choose to either marshall more arguments to support your position or to ignore them.

You asked the question JK. I knew it was far beyond the scope of this forum to discuss this issue. However, since YOU asked, I gave you a quick rundown of the progression of this line of reasoning. I was not offended by your correction. I was actully glad to see it and was heartened that you had caught my error.

For others to jump in and offer opinions when they really have none is hubris on their part.

JK a careful and honest look will lead you to the same truth. History is a tug of war it is all linked. I don't think I have ever had this type of intensity with you and we could not disagree more. GD at one point, tried to persuade me it was your lack of reasoning that led you...

You asked the question JK. I knew it was far beyond the scope of this forum to discuss this issue. However, since YOU asked, I gave you a quick rundown of the progression of this line of reasoning. I was not offended by your correction. I was actully glad to see it and was heartened that you had caught my error.

For others to jump in and offer opinions when they really have none is hubris on their part.

JK a careful and honest look will lead you to the same truth. History is a tug of war it is all linked. I don't think I have ever had this type of intensity with you and we could not disagree more. GD at one point, tried to persuade me it was your lack of reasoning that led you to your beliefs. I disagree with him. I think you are very intelligent. Which is why I am concerned that you and many like you fall under the spell of materialist/humanist thought.

There's a couple of obvious differences between my comment and McCullough's article.

First of all, my comment was part of an exchange with you, where both of us have equal standing--we can write as much as we want in response to each other. You have the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of my paraphrasing. McCullough was obviously not dialoguing with Nunez. He was reporting on Nunez's statement and mischaracterizing it.

In fact, I don't see you complaining about any mischaracterization on my part--just this tenuous argument about me putting a paraphrasing in quotation marks.

Second, it is obvious to everyone will follows this exchange that my quotations were paraphrases. Your or...

There's a couple of obvious differences between my comment and McCullough's article.

First of all, my comment was part of an exchange with you, where both of us have equal standing--we can write as much as we want in response to each other. You have the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of my paraphrasing. McCullough was obviously not dialoguing with Nunez. He was reporting on Nunez's statement and mischaracterizing it.

In fact, I don't see you complaining about any mischaracterization on my part--just this tenuous argument about me putting a paraphrasing in quotation marks.

Second, it is obvious to everyone will follows this exchange that my quotations were paraphrases. Your original words are right here in this exchange. People who follow it will know that I am paraphrasing you, because they would have read your original statements. If I was reporting on your words to an audience that did not have the original exchange in front of them (just like McCullough's readers did not have Nunez's statement in front of them when they were reading his column), and I attributed that quotation to you then that would be wrong. The way McCullough presented his quotations, it is not obvious that he was putting words into Nunez's mouth.