Originally posted by chancremechanic
I'll answer both of your questions...
1. What's wrong with anarchy, radical liberals and militants? Well, anarchy is absence of government and law, and that describes a Mad Max film. Do you want to live in that type of environment?
2. Radical liberalism is the opposite of radicle conservatism, which is just as looney. A healthy middle ground is what makes society function smoothly. In the U.S.(and probably in Canada), radical liberals want to force their way of life onto the majority of middle-grounders such as myself by excluding Christ from CHRISTmas, by forcing me to accept Harry and Peter as legitimate spouses, allowing 3-time sex offenders out of prison to walk the streets and kill young women like the scumbag in North Dakota.
3. Militants flew planes into the WTC and are trying to establish Islamic law (Sharia) over ALL the nations of the world through terror and coercion.
i have started this thread since it has little to do with what was happening in the other one. right now i'm going back there to answer you regarding the other matter, but i'll come back here since what i thought was radical liberalism is very different from what you have written here - i don't even know what this mad max film is.
here is kirksey's post as well below:
Originally posted by kirksey957
[b]Let me take this thread on a little different path as I know many people have strong feelings about same sex marriages. Shouldn't gays and lesbians be punished the same way straight couples are punished with marriage? You know, all the things that married couples have to deal with in marriage. I know they do to some extent, but if things go bad, they just leave. There is no custody battle, lawyers, child support, questions about who gets what. It seems to me the problem with marriage today is not whether gays should be afforded the right to marry, but the fact that traditional marriage is in the sorry shape it is in. Am I missing something here? Rev. Kirk
Originally posted by pradtfi am not trying to contradict you here - not yet at any rate 😀
Originally posted by chancremechanic
[b]I'll answer both of your questions...
1. What's wrong with anarchy, radical liberals and militants? Well, anarchy is absence of government and law, and that describes a Mad Max film. Do you ...[text shortened]... ) over ALL the nations of the world through terror and coercion.
i agree to some extent with some of the points you make.
it is my underatnading though that many of the things we supposedly value today are a result of radical actions often taken by a small group of brave individuals who didn't stick to the 'middle-ground' and were in their time maligned by the 'establishment' as being radical, militant and anarchistic.
please correct me if you feel my premise is wrong.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfGive me some examples...just because I'm "middle ground" doesn't mean I'm closed to changes. The U.S. won its independence due to "radicals" (rebels), Christopher Columbus sailed into the horizon to fall off of the face of the earth according to the establishment at that time, but look what he "discovered". All I'm saying is that the militants of today, whether plane-flying Islamists or abortion clinic bombing so-called Christians, are what's tearing this world apart. I don't know much about the Anarchist agenda...maybe there are some at this site that can enlighten me...personally, I'm like a ship sailing in a channel in which both shores are lined with hazards, and I'm trying to steer a "middle course"...that's me...others may like to skirt the shore...that's their deal...cheers
i am not trying to contradict you here - not yet at any rate 😀
i agree to some extent with some of the points you make.
it is my underatnading though that many of the things we supposedly value today are a result of radical actions often taken by a small group of brave individuals who didn't stick to the 'middle-ground' and were in their time malign ...[text shortened]... t and anarchistic.
please correct me if you feel my premise is wrong.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by chancremechanici was going to present your first point as an example, so thank you. in fact, it was the radical courage (which the british considered anarchistic) that built the foundations of USA. the statue of liberty was a gift of admiration from france. other examples?
Give me some examples...just because I'm "middle ground" doesn't mean I'm closed to changes. The U.S. won its independence due to "radicals" (rebels), Christopher Columbus sailed into the horizon to fall off of the face of the earth according to the establishment at that time, but look what he "discovered". All I'm saying is that the milit ...[text shortened]... "middle course"...that's me...others may like to skirt the shore...that's their deal...cheers
how about bishop wilberforce's attack on slavery? for that matter how about ben franklin's attack on slavery (yes he owned slaves at one time, but vehemently opposed this barbarity later). both were considered irritating radicals to those in the slave business. and of course, slave owners always claimed they treated their slaves kindly, didn't they?
the philosophies of rousseau and voltaire sparked the french revolution and there was anarchy because of these radical thoughts that men should be treated as equal - an absolutely preposterous idea in those days (and even now in many circles).
from science, galileo was forced to face the consequences of supporting the radical notion that the sun was at the center of the solar system.
from politics, the women's suffragette movement a painful and slow process. the feminsit movement with leaders such as germaine greer and gloria steinhem who blazed the way for equality in typical radical fashion against ridiculous opposition. a story that comes to mind is the instigation of canada's first female judge (forgotten who) - apparently there was opposition on the basis of whether women were really people constitutionally, so the brilliant canadian government had to ask britain to resolve this profound matter, which eventually resulted in her taking the seat.
the entire animal rights movement is presently considered radical and anarchistic and militant. yet leaders such as ingrid newkirk, peter singer, paul watson and many many others are doing something considered even more difficult than overcoming racism - they are overcoming speciesism.
in music, tchaikovsky was considered radical even for the classical ear. his first piano concerto was considered unplayable and in the review of his violin concerto the critic wrote that the violin was beaten black and blue.
how about the civil rights movement, by the radical martin luther king - he was thought to be tearing US apart. how about india's liberation from the british. by the radical gandhi tearing the british empire apart. they were 'radical' in another way too - both believed in peaceful (though not passive) rebelion, both took jesus at his word and turned the other cheek, both were willing to die (and did) die for their cause, but there was no cause either were willing to kill for.
the shore may be lined with hazards, but there are also a lot of noble heroes on that shore showing the way.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by chancremechanica quick diversion:
[b]I'll answer both of your questions...
1. What's wrong with anarchy, radical liberals and militants? Well, anarchy is absence of government and law, and that describes a Mad Max film.
just came across this in the tv listings:
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome **+ (1985, SciFi) Aunty Entity will return Mad Max's camels if he fights the giant Blaster in a barbaric caged arena. PG-13 TV14 CC Stereo
is this what you are talking about? is this for real or a joke? 🙄
reading the caption makes me glad i don't watch tv (except at dinner time, but so i don't have to talk with my mouth full) 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by ncrosbyreally? ok thanks for telling me. now i'm sorry i didn't tape it - at least to have a look.
Mad Max movies are AWESOME films, haven't watched them in years but I loved them. Good example for your conversation too.
but really, that caption is pretty unappealing about 'aunty entity' and the 'blaster' - sounds like a really weird thing though i know that these tv writeups can be often far more pathetic than the films 😀
but thanks for the recommendation anyway - and feel free to join in this thread if you so wish.
in friendship,
prad