The Rabbit Hole | Page 174 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Peering down the algorithmic trading rabbit hole 11 replies

Badgers Bolt hole 39 replies

Different Charting software: Hole in charts? 0 replies

Pipbuilder's hole 2 replies

Black Hole Trading 0 replies

Attachments: The Rabbit Hole
Exit Attachments

The Rabbit Hole

  • #3,461
  • May 1, 2017 3:10am May 1, 2017 3:10am
It is commonly believed among non liberals that people with left wing leanings are to be pitied for their inability to put forward a cogent argument based on truth derived from facts. The aftermath of such a disintegrated argument are usually hurt feelings in the first instance.

The case for religion is less robust than the case for a liberal argument, for that is entirely based on beliefs and feelings, without a single shred of fact. And they have the arrogance to call it the Truth? What an absolute joke! So we see the same people who take the moral high ground when arguing politically, then throw in their lot on the religious angle? Is that not dishonesty and hypocrisy?

I have no intention of offending anyone here; I am simply pointing out an anomaly. If you have freedom of thought and the ability to question, facts should not provoke hurt feelings - which is exactly the reaction of some liberals we see when their beliefs are questioned.

I find it both appalling and deeply frightening that religion is used in American politics. To that end, they are no better than Islamic states. Religion has no place in politics or education. Teaching Creationism in Science classes to vulnerable and impressionable children is simply indoctrination, which again draws a parallel to some Islamic countries. Religion should only be a lifestyle choice, but actually in reality, is a very dangerous and effective tool in controlling the masses.
  • #3,462
  • Edited 3:51am May 1, 2017 3:39am | Edited 3:51am
Quoting jen101
{quote} I didn't ask you before what your definition of God was because it is generally assumed that you are talking about the God of a particular religion or religions. It then crossed my mind that perhaps you were not. In which case, to avoid confusion, perhaps you should say "omniscience energy force" or whatever, which really has nothing to do with any religion. Then I would agree with you, that that is not man made, but is a power over and above all living things. So no, then that would not be responsible for atrocities or the belief of such...
Hello Jen. I trust you had a good weekend!

I think my opinion or my own definition of God was irrelevant to the original premise that you posed in which I was responding to.

"Without religion, most of the wars in history would not have happened. Where was God and morality in that?"

This is where I disagreed with you on not the other stuff such as "God, religion, it's definitions, or that people believed in a certain ideology that you disagree with therefore provided the impetus to create wars. Throughout history, wars has always been over commerce and trade, and cultural dominance. Religion as I stated earlier was the preface in which was used to justify their(a waring nation's) position or cause for going to war as being moral.

As far as everything else you are talking about in terms of creationism, and man made beliefs is subjective in nature, while on some levels in accordance with proven science are the exception, everything else can't be substantiated because it is theoretical and has yet to be proven.
  • #3,463
  • May 1, 2017 3:46am May 1, 2017 3:46am
Quoting jen101
It is commonly believed among non liberals that people with left wing leanings are to be pitied for their inability to put forward a cogent argument based on truth derived from facts. The aftermath of such a disintegrated argument are usually hurt feelings in the first instance. The case for religion is less robust than the case for a liberal argument, for that is entirely based on beliefs and feelings, without a single shred of fact. And they have the arrogance to call it the Truth? What an absolute joke! So we see the same people who take the...
How is religion used in American politics? Because a politician running for public office is a believer and wants to appeal to his constituency as having in common similar beliefs and you find that appalling and frightening? Wouldn't that be censoring free speech by advocating such a position?

Also just as Exodus pointed out the origin of the word "cult" and how it's meaning through the centuries has changed to becoming a pejorative term, so too has the word "Liberal"! The origin of Liberal was actually a movement in liberty that was rooted in conservatism when the Americans were at war with the British in is fight for independence. ( this can be argued that it originated in Britain along democratic values and took on a different meaning in America) In the modern sense, the word was hi-jack along the way, twisted to mean the leftist or Democratic party member's values.
  • #3,464
  • Edited 2:07pm May 1, 2017 10:33am | Edited 2:07pm
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} How is religion used in American politics? Because a politician running for public office is a believer and wants to appeal to his constituency as having in common similar beliefs and you find that appalling and frightening? Wouldn't that be censoring free speech by advocating such a position? Also just as Exodus pointed out the origin of the word "cult" and how it's meaning through the centuries has changed to becoming a pejorative term, so too has the word "Liberal"! The origin of Liberal was actually a movement in liberty that was rooted...
If I was running for MP, should I be appealing to voters by parading around in short skirts and killer heels? No, because it would be unethical and unprofessional. It has nothing to do with politics, like religion does not. To mix religion and politics and hence law, you have hey presto, Sharia Law.

In Europe, if anybody in public office cited anything religious, they would be seriously laughed at, would completely lose all credibility and be labelled a crackpot. That is why we struggle to take American politicians seriously when they play the God card.

Edit: if the word "liberal" bothers you that much, feel free to substitute it for "leftie" or whatever you choose. It doesn't change the message. I'm not bothering to argue about semantics.
  • #3,465
  • May 1, 2017 3:18pm May 1, 2017 3:18pm
Quoting jen101
.... If I was running for MP, should I be appealing to voters by parading around in short skirts and killer heels? ....
I'd vote for you, Jen, but only if you had decent matching legs.....

Seriously, I am mildly amused by the improvement in ratings enjoyed by the likes of Burlesconi and Hollande when some indiscretion surfaces. I can't remember what happened with Edwina Curry and John Major, but I expect her rating went down whereas his probably improved, which is a bit rough.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,466
  • May 1, 2017 9:57pm May 1, 2017 9:57pm
Quoting jen101
{quote} If I was running for MP, should I be appealing to voters by parading around in short skirts and killer heels? No, because it would be unethical and unprofessional. It has nothing to do with politics, like religion does not. To mix religion and politics and hence law, you have hey presto, Sharia Law. In Europe, if anybody in public office cited anything religious, they would be seriously laughed at, would completely lose all credibility and be labelled a crackpot. That is why we struggle to take American politicians seriously when they play...
Lumping optics with ideology is a weak argument in regards to your criticism of religion and American politics. Religious speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what religion or whether you agree with it or not. If a politician makes it known what his faith is to his constituency, that is free speech, just as how a person dress is as well, regardless if the public is adorning or scornful of such presentations. Also what is protected under the constitution to insure that such religious views does not have a say in shaping public policy is the separation of Church and State and is explicit in the way the US's judicial, executive branches of Government is designed to act as a firewall to this when it appears as a conflict of interests. The difference between Britain and America, is that Britain has ceded that right of free speech and regularly practices censorship at an attempt to institute political correctness, such as determining and instituting laws on hate speech, which is so arbitrary. No surprise there that you would hold such views when it comes to this subject matter, as your premise seems to suggest, supporting going down a slippery slope that promotes censorship by silencing religious liberty. America on the other hand, has the 1st amendment that no matter what,(even flag burning) is protected as free speech.

In regards to sharia law, in America it would be impossible to pass such a law because that too explicitly conflicts with the tenets of the US constitution, and the only way that it could pass, is to amend or change the constitution to allow it, which would be extremely difficult to do so. I am not sure how you can make such analogies without actually knowing what the US constitution's interpretation really means or articulates. If you are talking about the UK, then I can see the case being made, based on Britain's Constitution, it could be much easily amended to be inclusive of such a law. It is pretty safe to assume, based on Britain's dumb immigration policies that it is half way there! That is the difference between Europe and America, and Europe and Britain as seen through the eyes of the American people probably have the same criticisms as you have of them, which makes these culture's vastly different in their ideological views.

Where do you get that I am bothered by your use of the word Liberal and I am arguing semantics? I am scratching my head on that one as I am just pointing out the use of the word has changed over time in it's meaning and I thought you would appreciate that. It's OK we can disagree and still be friends.
  • #3,467
  • May 2, 2017 3:30am May 2, 2017 3:30am
Mr.Manhatten, I respectfully call a stop on discussing American politics based on arguments centering upon religion vs the American constitution. It is pointless.

Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Lumping optics with ideology is a weak argument in regards to your criticism of religion and American politics.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the process, which is objective focused. The objective is to win the support of the voters, the means by which this is achieved depends upon the personalities of the majority of voters and the success or otherwise of any candidate in aligning themselves with the unstated wishes of the electorate..

Quoting DrManhatten
Religious speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what religion or whether you agree with it or not. If a politician makes it known what his faith is to his constituency, that is free speech, just as how a person dress is as well, regardless if the public is adorning or scornful of such presentations.
No problem with that...

Quoting DrManhatten
Also what is protected under the constitution to insure that such religious views does not have a say in shaping public policy is the separation of Church and State and is explicit in the way the US's judicial, executive branches of Government is designed to act as a firewall to this when it appears as a conflict of interests.
However there is an amendment process which can change that.

Quoting DrManhatten
The difference between Britain and America, is that Britain has ceded that right of free speech....
Britons never had the right to 'free speech'. That is a notion that is supported by the part of the ruling mechanism to disguise the truth.

Quoting DrManhatten
....and regularly practices censorship at an attempt to institute political correctness, such as determining and instituting laws on hate speech, which is so arbitrary.
Further to the lack of a right to free speech there are those who invoke various 'moral' causes to support new legislation such as not offending people by making comments which do not align with, or could be considered as directly in opposition to, various religions or cultures. The result is that such religions and cultures are gaining ground to the point where they will be, and in some areas already are, able to bring about changes in Laws to support their cultures and religions.

Quoting DrManhatten
America on the other hand, has the 1st amendment that no matter what,(even flag burning) is protected as free speech. In regards to sharia law, in America it would be impossible to pass such a law because that too explicitly conflicts with the tenets of the US constitution, and the only way that it could pass, is to amend or change the constitution to allow it, which would be extremely difficult to do so.
I advise you to study the UK. In a process that has taken at least 60 years the structure of British society has changed completely. There have been discussions in the pages above as to how this has happened, and any attempts to undo these changes are now labelled as 'racist' or similar. Therefore I suggest it is hugely shortsighted to rely upon the American Constitution to protect you from anything ... except what exists today in current forms to protect against current threats. The Amendment process can be used to wreak changes that will be piece-wise difficult to thwart, but as a conglomerate will have devastating consequences.

Quoting DrManhatten
I am not sure how you can make such analogies without actually knowing what the US constitution's interpretation really means or articulates. If you are talking about the UK, then I can see the case being made, based on Britain's Constitution
Britain does not have a Constitution. It has a bunch of Laws, and we are all subject to them. In fact we British are all subjects of 'the Crown', now embodied by Government. Learn your lessons from our predicament.

Quoting DrManhatten
It is pretty safe to assume, based on Britain's dumb immigration policies that it is half way there!
Britain's dumb immigration policies are European Immigration policies, that is mostly why the Brexit vote was successful.

Quoting DrManhatten
That is the difference between Europe and America....
In parts you are correct...
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,468
  • May 2, 2017 4:03am May 2, 2017 4:03am
Quoting Exodus
{quote} I'd vote for you, Jen, but only if you had decent matching legs..... Seriously, I am mildly amused by the improvement in ratings enjoyed by the likes of Burlesconi and Hollande when some indiscretion surfaces. I can't remember what happened with Edwina Curry and John Major, but I expect her rating went down whereas his probably improved, which is a bit rough.
Ah, that's good to know! I hear that Labour are recruiting in your constituency... and yes, I do have matching legs...
  • #3,469
  • May 2, 2017 4:04am May 2, 2017 4:04am
Remember Afghanistan? No wonder they dropped the MOAB....
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/things-not-looking-good-afghanistan-183125900.html
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
  • #3,470
  • May 2, 2017 4:14am May 2, 2017 4:14am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Lumping optics with ideology is a weak argument in regards to your criticism of religion and American politics. Religious speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what religion or whether you agree with it or not. If a politician makes it known what his faith is to his constituency, that is free speech, just as how a person dress is as well, regardless if the public is adorning or scornful of such presentations. Also what is protected under the constitution to insure that such religious views does not have a say in shaping...
You were up late /early! Couldn't sleep? Not good for your health!
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Capture.JPG Size: 30 KB


Lumping optics with ideology is a weak argument in regards to your criticism of religion and American politics. Religious speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what religion or whether you agree with it or not. If a politician makes it known what his faith is to his constituency, that is free speech, just as how a person dress is as well, regardless if the public is adorning or scornful of such presentations. Also what is protected under the constitution to insure that such religious views does not have a say in shaping public policy is the separation of Church and State and is explicit in the way the US's judicial, executive branches of Government is designed to act as a firewall to this when it appears as a conflict of interests. The difference between Britain and America, is that Britain has ceded that right of free speech and regularly practices censorship at an attempt to institute political correctness, such as determining and instituting laws on hate speech, which is so arbitrary. No surprise there that you would hold such views when it comes to this subject matter, as your premise seems to suggest, supporting going down a slippery slope that promotes censorship by silencing religious liberty. America on the other hand, has the 1st amendment that no matter what,(even flag burning) is protected as free speech.

In regards to sharia law, in America it would be impossible to pass such a law because that too explicitly conflicts with the tenets of the US constitution, and the only way that it could pass, is to amend or change the constitution to allow it, which would be extremely difficult to do so. I am not sure how you can make such analogies without actually knowing what the US constitution's interpretation really means or articulates. If you are talking about the UK, then I can see the case being made, based on Britain's Constitution, it could be much easily amended to be inclusive of such a law. It is pretty safe to assume, based on Britain's dumb immigration policies that it is half way there! That is the difference between Europe and America, and Europe and Britain as seen through the eyes of the American people probably have the same criticisms as you have of them, which makes these culture's vastly different in their ideological views.

Attached Image

What's it like in there? The echo must be great!
A long shot, but if you do manage to catch a glimpse of daylight, I thoroughly recommend you listen to Christopher Hitchens, because he answers all your points with a plethora of facts...

...still be friends.

Friendship usually involves give and take, respect and understanding. Hmm... I have to think about that one...
  • #3,471
  • May 2, 2017 5:09am May 2, 2017 5:09am
Quoting jen101
{quote} You were up late /early! Couldn't sleep? Not good for your health! {image} Lumping optics with ideology is a weak argument in regards to your criticism of religion and American politics. Religious speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what religion or whether you agree with it or not. If a politician makes it known what his faith is to his constituency, that is free speech, just as how a person dress is as well, regardless if the public is adorning or scornful of such presentations. Also what is protected under the constitution...

Wow you surprise me Jen! So in other words I state facts in response to what your statement was, that run contrary to supporting your own opinion and suddenly you characterize me living in an echo chamber? Christopher Hitchens didn't make the argument you did and that is what I was responding to. Lets be adults OK, I thought we were having an adult conversation about topics you brought up in the first place? Can't accept when one makes valid arguments that you don't agree with?
  • #3,472
  • May 2, 2017 5:24am May 2, 2017 5:24am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Wow you surprise me Jen! So in other words I state facts in response to what your statement was, that run contrary to supporting your own opinion and suddenly you characterize me living in an echo chamber? Christopher Hitchens didn't make the argument you did and that is what I was responding to. Lets be adults OK, I thought we were having an adult conversation about topics you brought up in the first place? Can't accept when one makes valid arguments that you don't agree with?
No, but Christopher Hitchens has the answers and that is what I directed you to, because he explains it a hell of a lot better than I can, that's all. You never even responded to my points directly; you twisted them, then threw a load of shit my way.

But, I know, you're not interested. And neither am I. So go and find some other mug to fight with because I really can't be arsed.
  • #3,473
  • Edited 6:03am May 2, 2017 5:46am | Edited 6:03am
Quoting Exodus
Mr.Manhatten, I respectfully call a stop on discussing American politics based on arguments centering upon religion vs the American constitution. It is pointless. {quote} That is a complete misunderstanding of the process, which is objective focused. The objective is to win the support of the voters, the means by which this is achieved depends upon the personalities of the majority of voters and the success or otherwise of any candidate in aligning themselves with the unstated wishes of the electorate.. {quote} No problem with that... {quote} However...
Mr.Manhatten, I respectfully call a stop on discussing American politics based on arguments centering upon religion vs the American constitution. It is pointless.

I didn't bring up the topic, but responding to Jen's comment but if you are singling me out for having responded, then that is fine. I guess free speech doesn't apply here? Even if somebody else is making the comment, are we not allowed to comment? I thought that is what discussion forums were for? Also for the record the argument is not pitting religion against the constitution, but merely pointing out how freedom of speech is a constitution right and that religious liberty in regards to speech is protected under 1st amendment rights, was more to point out I was making.

That is a complete misunderstanding of the process, which is objective focused. The objective is to win the support of the voters, the means by which this is achieved depends upon the personalities of the majority of voters and the success or otherwise of any candidate in aligning themselves with the unstated wishes of the electorate..

For the most part I agree, but there are exceptions to this premise

Britons never had the right to 'free speech'. That is a notion that is supported by the part of the ruling mechanism to disguise the truth. Further to the lack of a right to free speech there are those who invoke various 'moral' causes to support new legislation such as not offending people by making comments which do not align with, or could be considered as directly in opposition to, various religions or cultures. The result is that such religions and cultures are gaining ground to the point where they will be, and in some areas already are, able to bring about changes in Laws to support their cultures and religions.

Again that is the difference between American's right to free speech and Britain's! No one has the right to go out in public and expect not to be offended. In our eyes that is absurd. However that being said, most decent people who live in a civil society don't go out actively to offend people or their beliefs, that is just commonly understood as being ethical behavior, however people are free to speak their minds. Try living in New York city for a few years and you will learn to be offended on a daily basis with out getting your panties in a wad.

I advise you to study the UK. In a process that has taken at least 60 years the structure of British society has changed completely. There have been discussions in the pages above as to how this has happened, and any attempts to undo these changes are now labelled as 'racist' or similar. Therefore I suggest it is hugely shortsighted to rely upon the American Constitution to protect you from anything ... except what exists today in current forms to protect against current threats. The Amendment process can be used to wreak changes that will be piece-wise difficult to thwart, but as a conglomerate will have devastating consequences.

Yes I have studied quite extensively about Cultural theory and it's history in Great Britain. Yes to my understanding to which you speak of is not unique to Britain, but in most westernized democracies that have adapted to the Post Modernism paradigm name calling or such labels is the product in which the ethos of the dominant culture is its mode of operation. Also relying on the American Constitution to protect me is something that is inherently given to US citizens as a right, so you bet I will, however that doesn't apply while living abroad in countries such as Great Britain with all due respect, we are also not expected to change our constitution just to suit other countries objection to it.

Britain does not have a Constitution. It has a bunch of Laws, and we are all subject to them. In fact we British are all subjects of 'the Crown', now embodied by Government. Learn your lessons from our predicament.

Well from my understanding, you do have a constitution, just not like America's but one that is characterized as a living document made up of several charters that is malleable to include change. Is this not right? At least that is how I interpret it, and how it was explained to me by other fellow Britains


Britain's dumb immigration policies are European Immigration policies, that is mostly why the Brexit vote was successful.

Well Glad you did. Hope France does the same! Although the damage has already be done, time will tell if it can regain it's former footing.

In parts you are correct.
  • #3,474
  • May 2, 2017 5:58am May 2, 2017 5:58am
Quoting jen101
{quote} No, but Christopher Hitchens has the answers and that is what I directed you to, because he explains it a hell of a lot better than I can, that's all. You never even responded to my points directly; you twisted them, then threw a load of shit my way. But, I know, you're not interested. And neither am I. So go and find some other mug to fight with because I really can't be arsed.
I was just responding to your statement, that is all. If you were offended, than my apologies, it wasn't intended to do so! I am merely trying to have a conversation but to be fair, if you are going to criticize America and it's political discourse as it relates to the topic you brought up, do you do so with the expectations that no one can disagree with you?

What points is it that you think I twisted around? Again, I am literally responding to what you put into your own words, and interpreted as such.
  • #3,475
  • May 2, 2017 6:11am May 2, 2017 6:11am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} I was just responding to your statement, that is all. If you were offended, than my apologies, it wasn't intended to do so! I am merely trying to have a conversation but to be fair, if you are going to criticize America and it's political discourse as it relates to the topic you brought up, do you do so with the expectations that no one can disagree with you? What points is it that you think I twisted around? Again, I am literally responding to what you put into your own words, and interpreted as such.
Here's one:
Quoting jen101
{quote}In Europe, if anybody in public office cited anything religious, they would be seriously laughed at, would completely lose all credibility and be labelled a crackpot. That is why we struggle to take American politicians seriously when they play the God card.
Nothing to do with freedom of speech, constitutions: yours and ours, though we don't have one, our "dumb" immigration policies, hate crime etc etc. Just that anyone bleating on about God here would not be taken seriously and get laughed at. So you give me some lengthy diatribe defending America, how America is so great and we're so shit. Fine, that's up to you, but personally I'd rather be in Europe any day than America. For a start, I would not let my kids go to school there to learn Creationism in Science, nor let them eat any of that crap you call food and that's if they don't get shot by some nut job in school first. So God bless America!
  • #3,476
  • May 2, 2017 6:12am May 2, 2017 6:12am
If you want to hear a little on Labournomics, click here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39775693, but I warn you (especially those who require safe spaces) that this is truly uncomfortable listening. If you don't subscribe to the basic premiss that 1+1=2, don't listen to this
  • #3,477
  • May 2, 2017 6:19am May 2, 2017 6:19am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Here's one: {quote} Nothing to do with freedom of speech, constitutions: yours and ours, though we don't have one, our "dumb" immigration policies, hate crime etc etc. Just that anyone bleating on about God here would not be taken seriously and get laughed at. So you give me some lengthy diatribe defending America, how America is so great and we're so shit. Fine, that's up to you, but personally I'd rather be in Europe any day than America. For a start, I would not let my kids go to school there to learn Creationism in Science, nor let them...
What? Really? So now we are resorting to taking things out of context? I really don't understand where this is coming from Jen. Seriously I am a little confounded by your responses. Are you having a bad day today?

Do want me to concede and tell you that you are right and I am wrong? Will that be satisfactory to you in reaching a peace accord? After all it's not like I set out with the purpose to win an argument, but merely to have a discussion in topics you brought up in the first place.
  • #3,478
  • May 2, 2017 6:27am May 2, 2017 6:27am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} What? Really? So now we are resorting to taking things out of context? I really don't understand where this is coming from Jen. Seriously I am a little confounded by your responses. Are you having a bad day today?
Yes thanks to you. But that's OK, because I have plenty in my life to cheer me up. Who's taking things out of context, pot and kettle spring to mind? Are you bored? Why don't you go and argue with your shadow?

Quoting DrManhatten
Do want me to concede and tell you that you are right and I am wrong? Will that be satisfactory to you in reaching a peace accord? After all it's not like I set out with the purpose to win an argument, but merely to have a discussion in topics you brought up in the first place.
You're not interested in discussing something I brought up! WTF has freedom of speech and all that bollox got to do with laughing at someone who goes on about God?!
  • #3,479
  • May 2, 2017 6:38am May 2, 2017 6:38am
Quoting jen101
{quote} Yes thanks to you. But that's OK, because I have plenty in my life to cheer me up. Who's taking things out of context, pot and kettle spring to mind? Are you bored? Why don't you go and argue with your shadow?
Ok! Well, I certainly didn't expect our exchange would have turned to such a negative one, again apologies for our misunderstanding that it makes you feel so venomous in your responses!

Sincerely I hope you enjoy the rest of the day may peace return to you in your discourse.

Peace
  • #3,480
  • May 2, 2017 6:40am May 2, 2017 6:40am
Quoting DrManhatten
{quote} Ok! Well, I certainly didn't expect our exchange would have turned to such a negative one, again apologies for our misunderstanding that it makes you feel so venomous in your responses! Sincerely I hope you enjoy the rest of the day may peace return to you in your discourse. Peace
You have to do better than that, creep.
0 traders viewing now