posted
Mamet's self-employed, elderly, and a staunch supporter of Israel. It's inevitable that sooner or later he'd realize he's a neo-con, an idealized view of JFK notwithstanding. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Mamet's self-employed, elderly, and a staunch supporter of Israel. It's inevitable that sooner or later he'd realize he's a neo-con, an idealized view of JFK notwithstanding.
His views (as presented) seemed distinctly more libertarian to me. He certainly didn't advocate a strong foreign policy, which I take as the hallmark of self-employed, elderly, Israel-supporting neo-cons.
And don't you have a personal prohibition on the use of smilies ?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regression back into a second childhood is a symptom of senility. Regressing all the way back to the age of "Mine!" "Mine!" "Mine!" "Mine!" "Mine!" ain't a good sign.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was only conservatives who called their opponents mentally ill. Or is it different this time because you're right?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought it was only conservatives who called their opponents mentally ill.
I don't think anyone has claimed that. Maybe the voices in your head have been misleading you again.
---
There are people whose opinions are really worth (edit: dis)regarding on nearly every side of an issue. If someone tells you that this is only true of their opponents that's a pretty good indication that they are one.
posted
Isn't "Mine mine mine" what being elderly and voting for more social security is all about? Is there anything more selfish than voting yourself other people's money?
Why do libertarians get the title "selfish" when those grubbing for other people's money or those who love charity so long as someone else pays for it get the title "compassionate?"
True compassion is when you give your own money, in SECRET. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something to that effect too. Perhaps someone who has read the bible more recently than I can remember where.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure Jesus said something to that effect too. Perhaps someone who has read the bible more recently than I can remember where.
While I actually agree with your point, I've found that using somebody else's scriptures as an argument, when you don't believe in those scriptures yourself, is rarely persuasive.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure why that should be the case, Porter, as long as the scripture in question is cited accurately and relevantly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:True compassion is when you give your own money, in SECRET. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something to that effect too.
Jesus didn't talk about whether or not giving in secret was compassionate. He said that when we gave in secret, God would reward us openly; but when we trumpeted our charity before the world, we create our own reward from the notoriety.
Nothing about compassion.
You will note, however, that in the book of Acts, chapter 2, we are told that the members of the church had all things in common:
quote: 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
This was apparently enforced somehow, if you believe the tale of Ananias and Sapphira.
Which doesn't really say anything about political entrenchment of a religious ideology-- that's another conversation entirely.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: If I were a christian-hating atheist like KOM you might be right. But I agree with a lot of the stuff Jesus said, I just don't believe the miracles or the divinity and I'm don't know for certain if he was even a real person or not.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only annoyance with the article is the sweeping statement of class mobility he describes. The problem is that, while people do move up (and down) the "class scale", it is happening less and less over time. He just asserts/insinuates that since it happens every once in a while, the rest of us should shut up about it.
As for the rest? I don't think he can speak for all liberals about how we feel about certain things. I'm sorry that he wasted much of his life adhering to an ideal he didn't believe in, but that all other liberals are in a likewise situation is dubious. ---
Apropros to nothing...
It's funny, a liberal news source (Village Voice) publishes an oped by someone criticizing liberalism. Can I assume newsmax is going to publish an article by some notable person about how they aren't a "brain dead conservative"? Or is that too un-PC?
posted
Honestly, it looks to me like he's moved from a very shallow view to a slightly more complex one. He may have stopped being a brain dead liberal - which is great - , but if that's the end of his transformation, I'm not impressed.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you chastising Pix for saying that KOM is an atheist who hates Christians, or mph for having the details of Pix's belief system wrong?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about words like despises, sneers at, disdains, etc.?
KoM can defend himself, Threads. He hardly needs you to stick up for him. Anyway, if he objects to being labeled a 'Christian-hating atheist', he's really got only himself to blame. It's a pretty silly objection.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he's said that he'd like to send them (and all other theists) to reeducation camps and have those who don't see the light of atheism shot. That's not exactly hating them, I'll grant you, but I can see how somebody could get "hate" out of a comment like that.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also seem to remember him mentioning that he'd like to use a time machine, were such available, to go back in time and kill various religious figures. I mean, dude.
By the way, I hate dogpiles. However...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not exactly hating them, I'll grant you
The distinction is meaningless, IMO.
It wouldn't have to be--there could be motivations other than hate behind an action like that. None of them would be pretty, and they might actually be more revolting than simple hatred would be, but still.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the number of people confirming KoM's hateful comments I'll just eat my words.
However,
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: KoM can defend himself, Threads. He hardly needs you to stick up for him. Anyway, if he objects to being labeled a 'Christian-hating atheist', he's really got only himself to blame. It's a pretty silly objection. [/QB]
I disagree. It's a cheap shot and a common method of marginalizing atheists.
EDIT: Just for reference, this is the thread someone alluded to earlier.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, I see your point, and you are correct.
But from my perspective, it's a pretty meaningless distinction when somebody wants to murder me and my family because they hate us or for some other reason.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads -- he's talked about it in multiple threads, some more explicit than the one you linked to.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads: I wasn't marginalizing Atheists. *I* am an Atheist. I was pointing out that not all of us are intolerant of christians, while recognizing that there are vocal ones who give that impression.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thus we see why it's important to make sure what you're saying is correct before you call a member out. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a cheap shot and a common method of marginalizing atheists."
I've actually wondered briefly, once or twice, whether or not KoM says the things he does for shock value as much as anything else. His statements about religion seem not entirely believable, sometimes. It's hard to take some of that stuff as his actual opinion. IMO.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm surprised that there's any doubt in your mind about that."
I is gullible sometimes. If something sounds too good to be true, I am not as easily fooled, but if something doesn't sound too good to be true, or I can't figure out why the person would be lying or misrepresenting...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Threads: I wasn't marginalizing Atheists. *I* am an Atheist. I was pointing out that not all of us are intolerant of christians, while recognizing that there are vocal ones who give that impression.
My response to Rakeesh wasn't clear. I meant to say that it's a general tactic I've observed thats used to discredit atheists, not that you were using it. I acknowledge that my suspicions about your statement were incorrect.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to parse "marginalize" in this discussion. How do you marginalize someone who already seems quite comfortable in the margin?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But from my perspective, it's a pretty meaningless distinction when somebody wants to murder me and my family because they hate us or for some other reason.
Oh, agreed. Whatever his motivation, it's horrifying that he actually feels that way.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... using somebody else's scriptures as an argument, when you don't believe in those scriptures yourself, is rarely persuasive.
Perhaps, with The Pixiest's added point as an exception. Although, I'd note that the converse is even more rarely persuasive. i.e. using scriptures as part of an argument when the "target" does not believe is them is even more unpersuasive I only mention this because while IIRC, I do not believe that you've fell into this trap there are a fair number of otherwise very reasonable posters on Hatrack that do occasionally fall into this
pooka: They mean "marginalize" as in excluding from the conversation simply due to being an atheist.
As in while an atheist can be quite comfortable being an atheist, they still do not appreciate being ignored in conversations because of it.
e.g. "I support X. <Supporting argument here>" "But you're an atheist, therefore you must hate Christians, therefore I don't have to listen to your actual point"
quote:It wouldn't have to be--there could be motivations other than hate behind an action like that. None of them would be pretty, and they might actually be more revolting than simple hatred would be, but still.
Interesting. I suppose in the very abstract, academic sense I agree with you. It is possible for someone to have a set of reasons that doesn't include hatred for wanting to force on someone a choice of either renouncing their religion, or be murdered.
But I've certainly never met anyone I think would hold such a distinction in their hearts, and I can't think of anyone in history who I would trust to hold such a distinction.
Certainly not King of Men. Perhaps he could say, "I don't hate/despise/sneer at/pick-your-term you specifically, Joe ReligiousGuy, but I do those things for your religious beliefs." Those beliefs are part of the people he wants to send to 'education' camps.
--------------
quote:I disagree. It's a cheap shot and a common method of marginalizing atheists.
It's not a cheap shot with regards to King of Men. I've got nothing against atheist. King of Men isn't just an atheist, he's a reliably sneering, insulting atheist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
1) Um...this passes for insight? Especially the last several paragraphs that, near as I can tell, come to the conclusion that we're all just people...
2) How in God's name does David Mamet reconstruct himself as "everyman" to the point that we should learn from or care about his personal voyage to rediscovering that he maybe could think for himself everyone once in awhile.
Honestly, the article is just insulting because, behind it all, I think we see a Mamet who doesn't really believe that HE could ever not be the true thinking man. And if HE fell into this trap (he knows he did because his wife told him), then how deluded must the rest of humanity be. Then I just picture him thinking "The Voice'll eat this up."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
