matthew wrote:Tit for tat is a strategy game...and by using it I was implying that liberals see the world not in terms of right and wrong but rather in terms of the will-to-power and the methods to gain MORE POWER (for lack of a better terminology)...which they do.

Matthew:

Clozapine

matthew wrote:Tit for tat is a strategy game...and by using it I was implying that liberals see the world not in terms of right and wrong but rather in terms of the will-to-power and the methods to gain MORE POWER (for lack of a better terminology)...which they do.

A) No, tit for tat is a phrase meaning "Repayment in kind, as for an injury; retaliation."

Repayment in kind, retaliation, as in If he won't help with the beach clean-up, I won't run a booth at the bake sale; that's tit for tat. This term is believed to be a corruption of tip for tap, which meant "a blow for a blow." Its current form dates from the mid-1500s.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997 by The Christine Ammer 1992 Trust. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

B) You use the term "will-to-power" to mean "hunger for power," which is completely fucking inaccurate. Pathetic.

[edit to add]: I mean, seriously. You're the intellectual equivalent of a black belt in Tae Bo.

Antero wrote:You're the intellectual equivalent of a black belt in Tae Bo.

10/10.

matthew wrote:Bob, as usual you miss the nuance.

Matthew's understanding of the world, however, is as nuanced as a turd.

simmo wrote: nuanced turd

matthew wrote:

Bob wrote:Have you used your 'in-depth studies of Nietzsche' to explain to us why 'Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher' yet? And to explain that 'Nietzsche died before our father's father's father's fathers were born'? How hammered were you when you wrote that nonsense?

The "father's" thing is a minor detail Bob...I made an error that is not really pertinent to what we're really concerned with here. I'm glad it was noticed *wink*

I hadn't been back to the Nietzsche thread in a couple of days. I had no idea what I was missing over there.

To bolster his case that Nietzsche was the Father of Nazism, matthew wrote: I am quite convinced from just living my life that John Lennon's song "Imagine" is indirectly responsible for alot of hedonism and otherwise madness in this world today......of course it's a song and it's not a political thing per se, but how much indeed has it influenced politics and popular culture, and how much indeed was there a political motive in the song itself? One wonders.

More 'minor' errors like these abound over there. I feel cheated over here- that's why I'm not going to respond any more.

And Matthew? Get a dictionary, stat- "propitigate" is not a word, and if you use it a third time, it will still not be a word. The closest word that might be what you are thinking of is "propitiate", but I don't think you are trying to say "to appease". Maybe "propagate"?

Lennon's Imagine ( a song that says 'live peacefully' and little more ) has instigated an epidemic of hedonism? Beginning in 1980? That would be New Hedonism, I gather?

Clozapine with a chaser of antabuse, dude...

Antero, referring to matthew wrote: I mean, seriously. You're the intellectual equivalent of a black belt in Tae Bo.

Wu Tang is for the children.

clocker bob wrote:

matthew wrote:

Bob wrote:Have you used your 'in-depth studies of Nietzsche' to explain to us why 'Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher' yet? And to explain that 'Nietzsche died before our father's father's father's fathers were born'? How hammered were you when you wrote that nonsense?

The "father's" thing is a minor detail Bob...I made an error that is not really pertinent to what we're really concerned with here. I'm glad it was noticed *wink*

I hadn't been back to the Nietzsche thread in a couple of days. I had no idea what I was missing over there.

To bolster his case that Nietzsche was the Father of Nazism, matthew wrote: I am quite convinced from just living my life that John Lennon's song "Imagine" is indirectly responsible for alot of hedonism and otherwise madness in this world today......of course it's a song and it's not a political thing per se, but how much indeed has it influenced politics and popular culture, and how much indeed was there a political motive in the song itself? One wonders.

More 'minor' errors like these abound over there. I feel cheated over here- that's why I'm not going to respond any more.

And Matthew? Get a dictionary, stat- "propitigate" is not a word, and if you use it a third time, it will still not be a word. The closest word that might be what you are thinking of is "propitiate", but I don't think you are trying to say "to appease". Maybe "propagate"?

Lennon's Imagine ( a song that says 'live peacefully' and little more ) has instigated an epidemic of hedonism? Beginning in 1980? That would be New Hedonism, I gather?

Clozapine with a chaser of antabuse, dude...

Bob.

It is obvious that you and I have very different ideas about the world. When I used the phrase "A tit for a tat", what I was alluding to was the fact that liberals and leftists have little or no moral center. It is therefore all a big game of a tit for a tat to them...because for them there is no moral center and thus what goes on in the world is merely interpreted as nothing more than a strategy game for the sheer acquisition of power, and right and wrong be damned. I don't believe this however. I believe in right and wrong...I believe that justice and retribution are not incommensurable. I believe that the United States is fighting a just war against terrorists and Islamic crazies. You obviously do not agree with me on these things. You have in so many words that the war against terrorists and in particular the war in Iraq is not a just war....and you go even further to say that it is utterly immoral and corrupt for the United States to be there waging war in the first place.

You don't see things clearly, sir.

Also, you have yet to answer my previous questions unequivocally. I've already assumed what your answers might be from what I have gathered. Prove my assumptions wrong.

and yes I did mean propagation. mea culpa.

what do you mean by: 'moral center'?


thanks,



Faiz

kerble wrote:what do you mean by: 'moral center'?


thanks,


Faiz

What do you think I mean?

I mean a moral foundation based on 2000 years of Judaeo-Christian faith. Most people who are far to the left are not Christian, and oft times are emphatically anti-Christian.