Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
You read it right folks, this is the next Marxist push, teaching kids that they're not entitled to free thought.
Read this shit, you won't believe it, but it's true.

Do we have the right to believe whatever we want to believe? This supposed right is often claimed as the last resort of the wilfully ignorant, the person who is cornered by evidence and mounting opinion: ‘I believe climate change is a hoax whatever anyone else says, and I have a right to believe it!’ But is there such a right?

We do recognise the right to know certain things. I have a right to know the conditions of my employment, the physician’s diagnosis of my ailments, the grades I achieved at school, the name of my accuser and the nature of the charges, and so on. But belief is not knowledge.

Beliefs are factive: to believe is to take to be true. It would be absurd, as the analytic philosopher G E Moore observed in the 1940s, to say: ‘It is raining, but I don’t believe that it is raining.’ Beliefs aspire to truth – but they do not entail it. Beliefs can be false, unwarranted by evidence or reasoned consideration. They can also be morally repugnant. Among likely candidates: beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic; the belief that proper upbringing of a child requires ‘breaking the will’ and severe corporal punishment; the belief that the elderly should routinely be euthanised; the belief that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a political solution, and so on. If we find these morally wrong, we condemn not only the potential acts that spring from such beliefs, but the content of the belief itself, the act of believing it, and thus the believer.


Such judgments can imply that believing is a voluntary act. But beliefs are often more like states of mind or attitudes than decisive actions. Some beliefs, such as personal values, are not deliberately chosen; they are ‘inherited’ from parents and ‘acquired’ from peers, acquired inadvertently, inculcated by institutions and authorities, or assumed from hearsay. For this reason, I think, it is not always the coming-to-hold-this-belief that is problematic; it is rather the sustaining of such beliefs, the refusal to disbelieve or discard them that can be voluntary and ethically wrong.

If the content of a belief is judged morally wrong, it is also thought to be false. The belief that one race is less than fully human is not only a morally repugnant, racist tenet; it is also thought to be a false claim – though not by the believer. The falsity of a belief is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a belief to be morally wrong; neither is the ugliness of the content sufficient for a belief to be morally wrong. Alas, there are indeed morally repugnant truths, but it is not the believing that makes them so. Their moral ugliness is embedded in the world, not in one’s belief about the world.

‘Who are you to tell me what to believe?’ replies the zealot.
I really thought that this was satire when Larry Elder played it on his radio program.
It's Not! :scared:

Wait. What will the Liberals have to fill their heads?
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Let's Catch Up
« Last post by Sick Of Silence on Today at 07:32:22 AM »
Don Lemon actually brought pom poms to the studio and Rachel Maddow finally had what she thought was an orgasm but was actually just the hiccups.

Scams / What Is France Thinking?
« Last post by Solar on Today at 07:29:35 AM »
Are French politicians scamming the public, did they make a pact with the Devil, or Muscums?
truly am perplexed as to why a nation would literally commit suicide?
A former terrorist whom of which trained the Charlie Hebdo attack say's France has to change its ways.

That's right, he say's the country is full of terrorists, terrorists he trained and he says he can't fix them alone, they are a ticking timebomb and they want to destroy their host country.

By the time he was in his early 20’s, he was actively radicalizing others.

Jonathan Elias: You were training them with an ideology for them to commit acts of terror in order to accomplish their goal?

Benyettou: That was exactly my role during all these years: to teach them the ideology, give them the justification. They wanted to fight but still had some doubts. And I was trying to answer their questions so they could go through with their actions.

Jonathan Elias: Was part of your training martyrdom?

Yes absolutely.

French media reported that three of his followers died in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Benyettou says he lost track of his Muslim recruits, but he is quick to point out that he never called for violence on French soil, which he says has become the new battleground for many radicalized French Muslims.

Benyettou: They hate this country.

Jonathan Elias: But why do they hate this country?

Benyettou: Because they think in this country there is big segregation against the Muslims.

Benyettou says he doesn’t want Muslims to be seen as victims in France and says the real question is what’s driving these young people to want to commit attacks against their own country in the first place.

Benyettou: Inevitably, every time there is an attack, it makes we want to do more to stop the attacks, to share my journey, to help young people think this over. That’s the message each attack sends me: that we don’t do enough to stop this.

Now, the man who radicalized one of France’s most infamous terrorists has written a book and is working with the country’s leading de-radicalization expert to try to convince jihadis to change before it’s too late.

Benyettou: Now, I cannot tell you that there is a magic remedy, but there is a lot that can be done to save people and to stop them from, getting into something worse than they’re already into.

Jonathan Elias: Some will see this, and they won’t believe you. You know that? They think once a terrorist, always a terrorist. Are they wrong?

Benyettou: I think that’s one of the biggest mistake one could make. The first ingredient we need in order to take someone out of this ideology is to believe you can do it.

Benyettou says he has spoken to about 20 individuals over the past year, but stressed to us that it's a long, slow process to break free from a jihadist mindset. And it's still too soon to say if these people have become de-radicalized.
The Nut House / Re: When Son Won't Leave Mom's Basement
« Last post by Sick Of Silence on Today at 07:26:37 AM »
This is a result of parents not being parent-y. The downfall of discipline, and the non-respecting of authority.

There was a time where I had to move back home for a short while, I was force to pay something (help with the expenses). I couldn't just stay at home like that. There would have been world war 3 at that house as a result.
The Nut House / Re: When Son Won't Leave Mom's Basement
« Last post by walkstall on Today at 07:20:00 AM »
Hmm...  Change all the locks.  :lol:
The Nut House / When Son Won't Leave Mom's Basement
« Last post by Solar on Today at 07:11:43 AM »
A couple in New York state is very interested in experiencing empty-nest syndrome so they’re kicking their son out of their house.

Now, a court in Onondaga County is reviewing the case.

Mark and Christina Rotondo say their 30-year-old son, Michael Rotondo, doesn’t pay rent and doesn’t help out.

In several letters, they explicitly told him to get out.

A series of eviction notice letters spanned the month of February.

Letters addressed to Michael expressed that he was their “guest and there is no lease or agreement that gives you any right to stay here without our consent.”

In a letter dated Feb. 18, his parents offered him cash and advice on how to navigate being out of their home.

“There are jobs available even for those with a poor work history like you. Get one — you have to work!” said one letter.

The parents’ warnings of eviction went unheeded so they finally filed motions to have the court remove him from their home.

A court filing shows that Michael wants a judge to dismiss his parents’ request.

The court hearing is set for this week.
He lied under oath, thats called Perjury.
I'm pretty sure we have about 30 people from the Obama mess that are on video perjuring themselves, lying to congress and others, on video.

Brennan, Clapper, Koskinen, Lerner, Comey, McCabe, the list is endless.

They could have already indicted a pile of people for perjury and leaking.  Let's continue to hope that they haven't, simply because it would get in the way of the real indictments for the real crimes.

I was thinking last night about the Awans, Weiner's laptop, the congressional sex payoffs list, the congressional alzheimer's list, Seth Rich.  These are the ones that really bother me.  Either they are moving along in deep cover, or they are just too big to ever look into.  Don't citizens and/or the Judicial Watch people have standing to bring these things out  ?
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Q` Qanon Explained
« Last post by Solar on Today at 06:31:30 AM »[/img]
Q !UW.yye1fxo ID: 7f44ec No.120138 📁
Jan 21 2018 21:27:24 (EST)
Will the FBI recover those missing texts?
[Nothing is ever truly deleted].
Your move.
Political Discussion and Debate / Re: Let's Catch Up
« Last post by Solar on Today at 06:29:00 AM »

As you know my net is very slow.  But then it came up.  :lol:
I should have said, "Wait For IT". :laugh:
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 10
Powered by EzPortal