Darzin

Members
  • Content count

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Darzin

  • Rank
    Faux political agitator

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    中国

Recent Profile Visitors

4,968 profile views
  1. I would say the gay, women's and civ rights, movements are all pertinent examples of non violent change.
  2. I am an urban hipster lol I'm everything those people despise. I voted for Bernie and Hillary. And I'm telling you if violence gets out of hand the liberals will lose. In the Spanish civil war the republic was in the right it didn't stop them losing to the fascists.
  3. And how much of what he wants has actually happened. Also violence is a slippery slope only advocate if you're going to win, and between urban hispters and good old boys in pickup trucks I know who i'd bet on.
  4. Note that these are all non violent resistance against oppression. A little different then bashing your opponents heads in no? This should be the model for creating change in a democracy.
  5. Right and I don't think political violence is appropriate in this case or almost any other. IF the US slides into full authoritarianism then maybe. But as long as we are a democracy with elections, no I don't think it's appropriate and Spencer is a nobody running a tin pot think tank. And the most powerful person in the Trump administration after Trump is a Jew. None of this is normal, true. But so far most of what Trump has done has been bog standard Republican boilerplate with dashes of incompetence and corruption. I don't think the Nazis are taking over just yet.
  6. True, he has clearly violated some laws but he hasn't issued any orders which are blatantly authoritarian. The media and the election system are still intact. One almost troubling thing is if Trump wasn't an incompetent fool with the attention span of a rabid hamster he could do some real damage. Imagine a competent polished ideologue with Steve Bannon's views that would be far more dangerous. And what is your solution? Because assault is assault. If you punch someone the police will arrest you and rightly so. Unless your proposing legalizing political violence? There is a civilized method to handling death threats, the police will arrest people for those too. If you want a leftwing dictatorship I think that's a terrible idea once who ahve dictator you've let the genie out of the bottle and they can do as they like.
  7. I think that's a fair assessment. I hope that Republicans having a governing majority will release that pressure somewhat. Also if the Republican party becomes more nationalist I'm not sure that in itself is a bad thing the US has one of the more liberal immigration systems in the world, although our immigration system is beyond convoluted and messed up. The idea of reducing immigration is not in itself racist although Trump certainly is. That said that only works if they can also respect the system. Right now conservatives seem pretty paraniod about everything being rigged against them who know if the fever will break or not. I am also concerned a bit by how liberals seem to have embraced total open borders, I've seen articles criticizing Trump for deporting people who are undocumented but have no criminal record. Sure Trump is bad and racist and bigoted against Muslims, and that is very very bad. But deporting people who have no visa is something every country does and I'm not sure how much sympathy should be offered to people who try to build a life in a country they have no legal right to be in.
  8. Wow, I'm finding all this talk of civil war a little crazy. I mean the left lost an election and now you guys are talking about overthrowing the republic. Yeah Trump is a horribly incompetent president with no regard to rule of law. But so far the laws of our nation have restrained him from laws and orders he's passed. Also while Trump himself is undoubtedly no friend of the LGBT community he is not there biggest foe either. 10 years ago we had a president who campaigned to create a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage, today we have a republican president who is willing to let it stand as the law of the land. The LGB movement has essentially won. Trump will repeal some protections no doubt and that will certainly hurt people, but almost all of the protections he would repeal were enacted in the last eight years. Talking about civil war is just nuts, for one the liberals would lose *see the Spanish civil war, most of the military is conservative, for another you have no idea what would come out of that process. Most revolutions end with hardline authoritarian governments, not peaceful democracies. If you really can't stand it advocate for succession. But Trump is in the end a setback a major one, but one ultimately doomed by demographics, he's the last desperate gasp of a dying class and value system. A horrible one no doubt but his movement and the values he represents are doomed. The American system is not perfect, but from 1776 to now we have seen a steady increase in rights for all sections of society. I fail to see why that would stop now. Trump is one of a long line of failed reactionaries who tried to stop it. Can he cause some pain, or even a lot of pain, yes, but ultimately I have faith that our system will defeat his bigotry and confine it to the dustbin of history as we have with so many bigotries of the past.
  9. I would say that people rolling coal has almost nothing to do with civilization or not, rolling coal is an example of pure tribalism, people doing that aren't doing that for freedom to rebel against restrictions for the good of society, it's tribal signaling pure and simple. People are doing it as a form of resistance to a system of values they disagree with, it's a way of social signalling. If you read some of the comments about this you'll see the people who do this often mention clouding certain cars such as the Prius with smoke. Certain kinds of people drive pickup trucks, certain kinds of people drive the Prius both are signals of a tribe and value system. People who roll coal are rebelling against another tribe, it's not rational or about freedom vs responsibility I doubt many of the people who roll coal even believe in global warming. Also back to the original question do humans hate civilization? No I don't think so, parts of modernity are stressful but they are a feature of modernity and an open society no t civilization per se. The dissolution of kin groups and the extended family leaves people without a support group and the lightening pace of technology and new social values diminishes people's ability to empathize with and understand older family members. Where before grandma could serve as a guide and experienced teacher, now grandma is obsolete barley able to function in the modern world and likely holding opinions that you would not accept if your friends held them. This is a very different situation then most of history. Despite this, we have all levels of civilization from hunter gathers to developed democracies. Few people from modern open societies seem to want to leave them so I'd say despite the stresses people like the material comforts of modernity enough to not give them up.
  10. Also him blowing up was not essential to the case they had him with the battery and the phone. Him blowing up as just extra, but by showing his mental condition they provided a plausible reason why Jimmy would lie to him. If he had reacted to the empty phone Jimmy would have shown that it had no battery so either way without the rant and without Chuck guessing the empty phone ruse, once that battery was placed on Chuck and he didn't react his case was sunk.
  11. @Ormond Fair enough, I don't have enough knowledge of the original Greek. @karaddin I think what you said is very true these customs often existed for a reason but have now become absurd to maintain in modern society. Take the burka for example, traditionally most families in Afghanistan live in walled compounds with their extended family and burka's were only worn outside of that. It's maybe not the most progressive thing but Afghanistan is a dusty dirty place and it keeps the dirt off when you go and shields you from prying eyes. It's really only for moving from compound to compound and as Afghanistan has often been an unlawful place it's best to have a male relative go with you. These complexes have many houses and large yards so your free to relax with your friends and family uncovered and safe behind their walls, but once you move this to a modern urban environment it becomes horribly restrictive, by limiting you to a small one room apartment and isolating you socially as you're no longer living with a large family group.
  12. I understand not taking the bible literally, but what is the rational for discarding the moral commandments of the bible? It's one thing to understand the creation of six days or the tower of Babel as an allegory those make sense. But when non-fundamentalist Christians begin discarding clear moral commandments they begin to lose me. I understand why they do so, because these moral commandments are ones that many people nowadays find repugnant, and people don't want to believe them. But why toss out some but not others? How can Christians talk about the bible as a moral guide if we can't trust it's morality?
  13. To break it down a little clearer I don't think the natural unnatural argument is valid because the law doesn’t come from that it comes from Leviticus which bans natural things which cause no harm. The old law is repealed but the prohibitions on sexual immorality remain. Acts 15:29 Paul who was at that conference later defines sexual immorality as including male homosexual relations 1st Corinthians 6:9-11. Therefore the law banning sexual immorality has nothing to do with naturalness as the authority for the ban comes from the Old Testament laws and not from Paul. I understand the Orthodox Church is not sola scriptura, but when the laity, scripture tradition and leadership agree I think it’s hard to hold the opposite view without falling into relativism. I personally don’t think homosexual relations are immoral, but I don’t see how they can be justified in a world where Orthodox Christianity is true. As someone who is an Orthodox believer I wonder what you think of my chain of logic above? Hope that helps explain what I’m getting at.
  14. I'm trying to convince you that based on the a priori assumptions of Eastern Orthodoxy the church is right and your wrong on the issue of homosexuality. I'm trying to convince you that if Eastern Orthodoxy is the true faith then homosexuality is a sin and your morality doesn't line up with God's. I think the exception you made is a bit of a cop out, if we can't rely on scripture or tradition to know God's will how can we know it? And guess I'm asking you, to justify a bit why you go to your church.