HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: 1

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Easy D Montague
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 80,708

About Me

History always serves us right; I've got a few tricks left, a dog in this fight

Journal Archives

Huell kills em all!

Except badger, who goes to Hollywood with skinny pete to write a science fiction tv show about a high school teacher on pluto who comes down with the venusian flu and starts cooking space meth to pay his robot doctor bills.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Sep 29, 2013, 09:57 PM (1 replies)

It's like anything else-"Christian" can encompass everything from 'love thy neighbor' to Fred Phelps

I probably shouldn't try on the specifics of "Feminism", for obvious reasons, except to reiterate that I identify as one, and for what I believe are the most broadly, commonly accepted goals and definitions of that label, namely things like reproductive freedom, equal pay, equal rights, etc. I do think there is broad support.

It's a real question, and not so easily answered; are these perceived "pr problems"- are they the fault of reactionary propaganda? Are they the fault of extreme ideological hard-liners inside the movement? Both? Neither?

Let's take environmentalism, since that's probably an easier one for me to opine on without setting off "alarm bells" with some here, and certainly when i self-identify as an environmentalist one would think it wont, at least, trigger a fusillade of eyerolls.

Broadly, one could say environmentalism encompasses wanting to protect the Earth, keep the environment clean. Broad goals which most support. Do the actions of, say, the people who blow up SUV dealerships speak for all "environmentalists"? I dont think they do, but interestingly enough it is those sorts of extremists who are most invested in keeping the label "environmentalist" or real environmentalist, to themselves.

I strongly support action on global warming, but Ive also held that real change is going to come primarily through technological breakthroughs in finding clean ways to power our shit. That's the hail mary pass. Telling people they need to give up their cars- it is just not going to sell, and anyone who claims it is, is deluded. Good, bad, it's just a fact. Maybe that means there is no hope for the planet, but the human animal, I think. Is always going to break in the direction of freedom. Long term.

This is why civil rights has succeeded, why LGBT rights are succeeding. People want to be free, they want to run their own lives, they want to make their own decisions. They simply don't like scolds and authoritarians, much to the perpetual chagrin of the scolds and authoritarians.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Sep 28, 2013, 07:12 PM (1 replies)

except, you're not actually talking to or about anyone in this group.

You've got some imaginary MRAPUAUPSGMO windmill that you're desperate to do battle with.

Maybe you should find some actual MRAPUAUPSGMOSMASWARGLLBFLSDSWTFs to argue with, and in the meantime, this thread is about Hot Celebrities. There must be one you think is hot.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Sep 21, 2013, 06:37 PM (0 replies)

There's nothing to debate. You want to debate the ironclad logical argument for something called a

"soul" or a "spirit", I'm not interested. The arguments against - or even before that, the arguments (much like those around "God" saying we bandy these words around far too freely without demanding at least something resembling a concrete definition for them - aren't going to convince people who believe these "things" are real, and the arguments "for" are -inevitably- like I said, tautological when you drill right down to their base.

Your primary assertion in this thread was that the word "God" doesn't carry a religious connotation, or that whatever nebulous connotation it carries has something to do with spiritual containers and somesuch. But that assertion is so bald-faced ludicrous, it doesn't really deserve much of a "debate", sorry. More persuasive, perhaps, is the "Ceremonial Deism" argument which has been validated through assorted SCOTUS rulings, which says that yes God is a religious concept but it's sort of grandfathered into these traditions so we're just not going to fuck with them.

That argument, of course, is rendered fairly moot in the case of the pledge, due to the relatively recent tacking-on of said phrase, AND the fact that we are dealing with Children of myriad faiths and those of no faith who are in public schools as a matter of law, and who by their very nature and station deserve a certain degree of additional respect and protection under the 1A than, say, viewers in the gallery at Congress or people handling money.

But I don't think you're going to find much traction arguing that "God" is not a religious word, a religious concept. Leaving aside the substition of "Allah" or "Zeus" or "Goddess" or something akin, which makes it fairly obvious, most people would agree that "God" is pretty obviously a religious word, a religious concept, so much so that what is it Atheists don't believe in, if not "God" or "Gods"? As such, that line is clearly discriminatory against the conscience of Atheists who wish their kids' rights under the Establishment Clause, again in Public Schools, be respected.

Sure, there are plenty of 12 step meetings where folks find ways to make "God" mean a doorknob or a tree or their friend Ralph. But those sorts of semantic gymnastics should not be forced upon schoolchildren at the price of their freedom of conscience and belief (or lack thereof).
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Sep 9, 2013, 03:27 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: 1