Billy_Soul_Devourer
@verizon.net
| Re: Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate-ity Hate! Hate-ity Hate! > SPECIFIC Examples of LW hate? (...)
Close, but not quite what I was asking for. Listing leftist people you know does not sufficiently represent the entire left constituency. Assuming for a moment that every leftist that you have ever known is full of hate and anger, there are still many leftists with different demographics and attitudes. I was asking more along the lines of how hate is common among the left wing, but not the right. There are many people leaning various degrees towards the left, from the far left to just left of the middle. I was curious how such a statement could be applied to that broad spectrum leaning toward the left, but not the right. There are extremists from the entire spectrum, and I'm not seeing any more hate originating from the left than anywhere else. You state how the left embraces those like Larry Flint, while the Right distances themselves from those like David Duke. I'd say that there is no consensus regarding those individuals within their respective camps. There are plenty among the left who don't support Flint, and Duke obviously had enough support to be elected into office.
With regards to religion, I didn't say that all religious people were hateful extremists, but rather that there is a subset of religious people that are zealots. Is there any large religious denomination that can truthfully claim that none of its members have hated or tried to force their beliefs upon others? There are also many conflicts throughout history directly involving religion and those who strongly profess to be of a certain faith: the crusades, Shiites killing Sunnis and vice versa, the trial of Galileo.
> ID was a compromise from the Right.
Many saw it as a guise under which to circumvent the separation of church and state. We're talking about science classes in public schools. Also, many of the opponents weren't opposed to the idea of presenting the viewpoint in general and would have accepted it being a viable topic in a philosophy, religious studies, or other non-science classroom.
> If the schools were equatable on the origin issue, they would present it as follows. (...) However, teaching something other than Darwinism is abhorrent to left leaning school boards.
Not quite. Evolution and the origin of life are two separate issues. Evolution is a theory that describes species changing over time, and the possibility of speciation (the development of new species from existing one) occurring. Evolution has been demonstrated using the scientific method. Explaining the origin of life is a separate matter, and is not a specific component of evolutionary theory.
> Their singlemindedness smacks of Zealotry.
In a science class, is it so unreasonable to present theories that are established on scientific principles? I have yet to see any creationist theories like intelligent design that are unbiased and able to reach their conclusions through the scientific method (Life is complex, so therefore it must have been designed? How is that argument scientific?). Scientific theories are often formulated through objective analysis and empirical research; if results contradict an earlier theory, then scientists will usually try to find an explanation and update the theory. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory; why should it be in a science classroom? There's not necessarily a backlash against anything other than evolution; it's more like an annoyed response to an attempt at sneaking in creationism through the back door.
> I believe parents are at their best when they directly protect their children from leftist influences, such as Hip Hop and MTV, Welfare Mentality, The Culture of Fashion and Public Schools...
You're entitled to your opinion. I believe that parents should provide their values to their own children and raise them responsibly, leaving others to decide how they run things for themselves.
When you say 'public schools' as 'leftist influences' that children should be 'protected from,' are you referring to all public educational institutions, including universities? Because if so, then I find it interesting that many of those public universities that should be 'protected' against are held in higher regard than a majority of private schools.
> The problem is the hue and cry from left leaning mouthpieces when the Right takes a proactive approach to their community outside of legislation, such as Ad Campaigns or Fostering Religious Environments.
I would say that it depends on how obtrusive those ad campaigns are, and how the religious environments are brought about. If the ad campaigns involve things like calling everyone on the phone like telemarketers (I think this applies to all obtrusive ad campaigns, actually), and the creation of a religious environment involves something along the lines of the intelligent design debate, then I can definitely see why the leftists were being upset. If the campaigns are not obtrusive to everyone not interested in them, then I bet a large percentage of the leftist side would not speak out against them.
> CBSNBCABCNYTBBCLATNPRPACIFICAAlJazeraBostonGlobeChicagoSunSentinaletc....
NPR has a large bi-partisan listening audience, and makes efforts to present more than one side of the issues. Which media outlets would you call objective and unbiased? Which right-leaning media outlets do not 'parrot' right-wing campaigning points or arguments against the left?
With regards to anti-Fox News sentiment: I don't hate them, but neither do I respect their journalistic integrity. They fired two of their reporters for refusing to lie to the public about a milk related issue. The two reporters filed a lawsuit and the judge ruled in their favor. On an appeal, another judge ruled that FOX did not have to tell the truth in its broadcasts. Not exactly a source that I would rely on for accurate and unbiased information.
Billy, Devourer of Souls |
