Evidence for God from Science

There's a difference in holding to a widely held religious belief and pushing wild eyed conspiracy theories or using over the top hyperbole. There are very serious and normal Christians. There are Christians who are lunatics. Don't equate belief in the resurrection of Christ with calling people who disagree with you Nazis. It's demeaning to everyone involved.

Jac3510 wrote:There's a difference in holding to a widely held religious belief and pushing wild eyed conspiracy theories or using over the top hyperbole. There are very serious and normal Christians. There are Christians who are lunatics. Don't equate belief in the resurrection of Christ with calling people who disagree with you Nazis. It's demeaning to everyone involved.

In B. W.'S defense, I don't see where he called them Nazis. I saw how he compared certain tactics that some on the left use, as the same as the brown shirt tactics the Nazis used.

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:There's a difference in holding to a widely held religious belief and pushing wild eyed conspiracy theories or using over the top hyperbole. There are very serious and normal Christians. There are Christians who are lunatics. Don't equate belief in the resurrection of Christ with calling people who disagree with you Nazis. It's demeaning to everyone involved.

In B. W.'S defense, I don't see where he called them Nazis. I saw how he compared certain tactics that some on the left use, as the same as the brown shirt tactics the Nazis used.

That is correct Rick, that was the point in which I was trying to make.

Fact is that both USA Political Parties sides all have made and compared all presidents of the USA from Nixon to Clinton to Bush, to Obama, to the current the present - to Hitler. Nothing new on that front. Party affiliation does not matter. as both sides are guilty.

Instead of National Socialism, which is in reality of the uber left, it is New Marxist socialism of the far Left that uses Brownshirt tactics.

Both these historically are far left and use the same means. Mao's cultural revolution, the use of chaos in all Marxist revolutions, the attempts to control and reshape people to think in slogans, control of media, etc and etc is well established empirically. Brown Shirt tactics are not confined to Nazi's but rather all Leftist groups in reality use these same tactic's in various shades and forms...

Soon and now is, what the opponents have been pointing out about them in both good taste and bad taste will be empirically self evident as they now are...so much so that the leftist tactic of ridicule, scoffing, and mocking will be seen through for what it really is.

For example,the left actually calls and defines all its opponents as, what? Make the list on your own...

So then, what are Brownshirt tactics?

Here is a short list: They share a geo-political ideology based on New Marxism ie socialism either hard moderate, or soft Marxism, are very well funded, they pay protesters. They defend their views by violence, ridicule, etc. They agitate, seek to subvert and destroy existing social order in their own host country. They stop traffic, physically beat down opponents, they scoff by means of didactic thought against those that oppose them.

They brawl and skirmish with the police and promote hate for the police, interrupt events/seminars/townhalls never never invited to, vandalize property, paint fake racist slogans to agitate sympathy for their side, the incite mob mentality, protect their leaders by means of controlling propaganda outlets and wagging the dog. ie control the narrative.

Promote perversion, promote new speak ie PC speak, the seek control through utter domination and force, they use community organizing to agitate for social change in order for people to: 1-give up personal freedom, 2- destroy host countries sovereignty 3- subvert by means of deception to gladly surrender all personal freedom to the will of the State ie Government.

It behooves folks to prove that the Leftist progressive ie the new marxist do not do any of the above mentioned things and empirically prove they do not.

For far too long Christians simply have let their guard down and have mixed the ways of the world into their churches belief system, compromising with the narrative of world system of control.

Instead of doing what Eph 5:11,12,13,14,15,16 enjoins - darkness get darker and some folks in the church soon justify aligning themselves with darkness...
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:There's a difference in holding to a widely held religious belief and pushing wild eyed conspiracy theories or using over the top hyperbole. There are very serious and normal Christians. There are Christians who are lunatics. Don't equate belief in the resurrection of Christ with calling people who disagree with you Nazis. It's demeaning to everyone involved.

In B. W.'S defense, I don't see where he called them Nazis. I saw how he compared certain tactics that some on the left use, as the same as the brown shirt tactics the Nazis used.

That's no defense. Everyone knows what "brown shirts" are, Rick. Please don't defend it.

And more specifically, the problem isn't BW saying, "The left are Nazis." The problem is the guilt by association -- "The left uses the same tactics as the Nazis!" That really is a problem and I know you can see why. "You're acting like a Nazi" isn't the semantic equivalent of "You're a Nazi" but it certainly has the same emotional force. The point is, what BW and those on the right (and the left, for that matter) are doing with the Nazi comparison is using one of, if not THE, most heinous examples of human evil and associating those with whom they disagree with it. It's putting liberals or conservatives or Trump or Obama or whoever in the same category as Hitler. And that is raising the acts of the person in question to Hitlereque levels of evil. That grossly overstates anything any American politician has ever done. And that should be offensive in and of itself. And it's worse because it actually demeans the evil of what Hitler did. It's sort of like the word "racist." Liberal commentators and others have used it so much and applied it to so many things that the term has lost most of its power except, of course, to those same liberals. A charge of real racism is so watered down anymore because people have cried wolf on the matter so many times. So God forbid a true racist comes along and you don't have the right charge anymore. Or, worse, you end up making it harder to understand just how truly sick real American racism was a century ago. To compare what people go through today in real discrimination to what slaves went through is an insult to slaves. And to compare liberals to Nazis is an insult to those who died in the Holocaust and their families. It's truly a shameful tactic to employ, and B.W. and all those who have used it owe everyone an apology for it.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:There's a difference in holding to a widely held religious belief and pushing wild eyed conspiracy theories or using over the top hyperbole. There are very serious and normal Christians. There are Christians who are lunatics. Don't equate belief in the resurrection of Christ with calling people who disagree with you Nazis. It's demeaning to everyone involved.

In B. W.'S defense, I don't see where he called them Nazis. I saw how he compared certain tactics that some on the left use, as the same as the brown shirt tactics the Nazis used.

That's no defense. Everyone knows what "brown shirts" are, Rick. Please don't defend it.

It's a valid comparison. Both use the same tactics. And no, I had no idea who the brown shirts were, before this thread. I did a google search and that's when I saw that some leftists(not to be conflated with all progressives) are using the same tactics that brown shirts used.

In my mind, It's a perfectly valid comparison, as long as one isn't conflating all liberals, with leftists. Because that would be doing what Edmurphy did. Those on the extreme(leftists), aren't the same as all liberals. Just like an extreme right person such as one in the KKK, isn't the same as all conservatives. I think if anything, it shows that those on both extreme ends of the spectrum, use the same tactics.

But, B. W. Would have to answer for himself, what he means by "the left". If he is lumping all progressives in the same basket as a more extreme "leftist", then I'd tend to agree with you. But, if he makes the distinction between leftists and the majority of progressives, then your attack on him is unwarranted.

It isn't a valid comparison, Rick. Look, Nazi's ate meat, didn't they? They weren't vegetarian. So what if a militant vegan says, "You meat eaters are using Nazi tactics, eating meat!!!11!1"

It's stupid. The whole reason the comparison isn't valid isn't because leftists do or don't use some of the same tactics Nazis did. That's an accidental relation. It's invalid because it is a guilt by association and therefore an ad hominem, which is, by definition, irrational.

Besides, it's just stupid. Comparing people that don't agree with you with mass serial killers is just wrong.

Jac3510 wrote:It isn't a valid comparison, Rick. Look, Nazi's ate meat, didn't they? They weren't vegetarian. So what if a militant vegan says, "You meat eaters are using Nazi tactics, eating meat!!!11!1"

It's stupid. The whole reason the comparison isn't valid isn't because leftists do or don't use some of the same tactics Nazis did. That's an accidental relation. It's invalid because it is a guilt by association and therefore an ad hominem, which is, by definition, irrational.

Besides, it's just stupid. Comparing people that don't agree with you with mass serial killers is just wrong.

It's not wrong if the comparison fits. The brown shirts silenced those who disagreed with them. The leftists are using the same tactics to silence those who disagree with them. Just look at what's happening at colleges across the country. Leftist protesters are attempting to silence those who they disagree with. Ben Shapiro and Milo come immediately to mind. Free speech is meant to protect those we disagree with.

There is a difference between comparing and equating TACTICS with comparing and equating ideologies and that is where people get frustrated with these things.
No one, even those employing "Nazi like tactics", ever view themselves as such.

Look, true freedom of speech and protection there of is NOT allowing people to say what we like to hear BUT allowing people to say what we despise hearing.

If people can't freely express their views and beliefs, then where is this freedom of speech ? (expression is another matter)

Remember, we are talking about WORDS and NOT actions.

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:It isn't a valid comparison, Rick. Look, Nazi's ate meat, didn't they? They weren't vegetarian. So what if a militant vegan says, "You meat eaters are using Nazi tactics, eating meat!!!11!1"

It's stupid. The whole reason the comparison isn't valid isn't because leftists do or don't use some of the same tactics Nazis did. That's an accidental relation. It's invalid because it is a guilt by association and therefore an ad hominem, which is, by definition, irrational.

Besides, it's just stupid. Comparing people that don't agree with you with mass serial killers is just wrong.

It's not wrong if the comparison fits. The brown shirts silenced those who disagreed with them. The leftists are using the same tactics to silence those who disagree with them. Just look at what's happening at colleges across the country. Leftist protesters are attempting to silence those who they disagree with. Ben Shapiro and Milo come immediately to mind. Free speech is meant to protect those we disagree with.

You're demeaning the memory of murdered Jews. Shame on you. I'm done with this. And as much as I hate apologies, for anyone who ever comes across this thread, I sincerely apologize for the insufferable conservatives who think it's at all appropriate to compare liberals with Nazis on the basis of "tactics."

Peace out.

Jac3510 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:It isn't a valid comparison, Rick. Look, Nazi's ate meat, didn't they? They weren't vegetarian. So what if a militant vegan says, "You meat eaters are using Nazi tactics, eating meat!!!11!1"

It's stupid. The whole reason the comparison isn't valid isn't because leftists do or don't use some of the same tactics Nazis did. That's an accidental relation. It's invalid because it is a guilt by association and therefore an ad hominem, which is, by definition, irrational.

Besides, it's just stupid. Comparing people that don't agree with you with mass serial killers is just wrong.

It's not wrong if the comparison fits. The brown shirts silenced those who disagreed with them. The leftists are using the same tactics to silence those who disagree with them. Just look at what's happening at colleges across the country. Leftist protesters are attempting to silence those who they disagree with. Ben Shapiro and Milo come immediately to mind. Free speech is meant to protect those we disagree with.

You're demeaning the memory of murdered Jews. Shame on you. I'm done with this. And as much as I hate apologies, for anyone who ever comes across this thread, I sincerely apologize for the insufferable conservatives who think it's at all appropriate to compare liberals with Nazis on the basis of "tactics."

Peace out.

So...

You railed against B. W. for comparing someone he disagrees with, to Nazis, yet you accuse me of demeaning the memory of murdered Jews because you disagree with me? You can't disagree with me without resorting to that?

Of course not. Read.

You aren't demeaning murdered Jews because you disagree with me. You are demeaning murdered Jews by your defense of Nazi comparisons. We disagree on Nazi comparisons. If you agreed with me, then you would not defend such Nazi comparisons and therefore wouldn't be demeaning the murder of Jews. But since to defend Nazi comparisons is to demean the murder of Jews, and you're defending Nazi comparisons, then you're demeaning the murder of Jews.

But you did get one thing right. I'm railing against B.W. for comparing those with whom he disagrees to Nazis. It's gross that anyone would think such a comparison is appropriate. Gross and demeaning to murdered Jews. Good thing there are no holocaust survivors here to put you and B.W. in your place. That's the only reason you can get away with that kind of shameful rhetoric, because there's no one here affected at that deep of a level. And that's what cheapens it all the more.

Jac: You aren't demeaning murdered Jews because you disagree with me. You are demeaning murdered Jews by your defense of Nazi comparisons.

Jac, you need to take a freaking Valium! You know damn well B.W. and Rick are not equating the Nazis with people on the Left - you know it's their tactics they're comparing - many of which are definitely similar. What planet are you on - as that terminology is frequently used of various groups people of nefarious tactics. "Demeaning murdered Jews" - Jac, you've lost your mind and need to cool it - NOW! Or I am going to cool YOU!!! There is no excuse for ratcheting up some fake, ridiculous sense of offense over something YOU have asserted about these guys that is not true! And you know they don't mean what you assert. I'd advise you not to come back with some smart comments. I've no more patience for such manufactured tantrums of supposed outrage.

I think Jac has a point.

When you accuse someone of using Brownshirt tactics you're saying that they're acting like Nazis. Not authoritarians, not dictators, not even fascists, but Nazis - the purist incarnation of evil that the world has ever seen. That's cranking the dial straight up to 11 and making a hyperbolic appeal to emotion. You're eliminating any possibility of having a rational discussion. It's a ****ty tactic, and as I've already stated, it doesn't play well outside of the echo chamber.

Honestly, I'm accustomed to B.W. being B.W., but Rick, Paul, and Phil, I expected better.

Philip wrote:

Jac: You aren't demeaning murdered Jews because you disagree with me. You are demeaning murdered Jews by your defense of Nazi comparisons.

Jac, you need to take a freaking Valium! You know damn well B.W. and Rick are not equating the Nazis with people on the Left - you know it's their tactics they're comparing - many of which are definitely similar. What planet are you on - as that terminology is frequently used of various groups people of nefarious tactics. "Demeaning murdered Jews" - Jac, you've lost your mind and need to cool it - NOW! Or I am going to cool YOU!!! There is no excuse for ratcheting up some fake, ridiculous sense of offense over something YOU have asserted about these guys that is not true! And you know they don't mean what you assert. I'd advise you not to come back with some smart comments. I've no more patience for such manufactured tantrums of supposed outrage.

No, sir, that's the problem I don't know "damn well B.W. and Rick are not equating the Nazis with people on the Left." That's my whole point, and I'd appreciate you not assuming you know my thoughts better than I do. As far as I can tell, that's exactly what they are doing, and I am persuaded that it is wrong. You want to ban me for insisting that we should not use such a hateful, terrible, awful tragedy to push our own political agendas then feel free. Unlike some people, I don't equate censorship with "brown shirt" tactics. There's equally "no excuse" for you to claim that my "sense of offense" is "fake" and "ratchet[ed] up" or "manufactured tantrums." Is it a thing now where if you disagree with someone's assessment of the morality of a situation that you threaten to ban them for it? You, phil, might not think that what they are doing is wrong and immoral. You might not be offended. But to tell me that I don't think it's wrong, that I don't think it is immoral, that I am ratcheting up fake offense is to effectively claim that you understand my sense of morality better than I do. I can't but point out further that not only have I called out the immorality of the Nazi comparison, but more importantly I've given a rational analysis as to why that comparison is immoral. I've cited the notion of guilt by association to take only one example as a rational explanation as to the objective basis of my moral claim. And I notice that was never addressed at all. Just threats. And on a final note, I'd ask you, as a moderator, to note that I left the discussion a few posts back. And Rick's response, rather than responding to the substance of my post or even acknowledging a profound difference in our moral interpretations, was to falsely suggest that I made the basis of my moral judgment (which, as you well know, is a rational judgment) regarding the objective fact that he is demeaning the murder of six million Jews as merely about disagreeing with me. That's not my argument and he knows it. Everyone knows it. So where's a mod to point out that we ought not be misrepresenting each others arguments like that?

You're a mod, Phil. I'm not asking you to defend me or my positions. I'm asking you for a note of fairness in your use of your authority. If you have a problem with something I'm saying, there's nothing preventing you from offering a private warning (cf Matt 18:15). Given your very public rebuke I'm offering a public request for fair treatment of my own position, which has not, in the entirety of this discussion, once been responded to--only ignored and mischaracterized.