Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; separated at birth?

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; separated at birth?

Postby RAnthony » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:49 pm

...and I suggest that based on Santorum's recent tirade;
“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”

“The French Revolution,” Santorum answered. “What’s left is a government that gives you rights. What’s left are no unalienable rights. What’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we are a long way from that, but if we do follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rick-santorum-draws-crowds-raises-nearly-1-million-after-tuesday-trifecta/
As a reflection of the argument from http://dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30831 where I was viciously attacked by members for suggesting that we needed to separate our arguments from the language of religion, and where Dan poo-pooed my concern with "everyone knows what I mean". Yes. Santorum agrees with you. Completely.
Last edited by RAnthony on Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby boethius » Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:29 pm

If human rights come from government, then government can take them away.
If human rights come from God, then government can still take them away with enough force.

But, for some reason, people who think they have God-given rights will defend them more vigorously than people who think their rights come from government beneficence.

Is it shocking both Dan and Rick can see the simple logic there?
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby RAnthony » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:17 pm

Neither opinion is actually true;
I had so many different issues with this episode, it's hard to name them all, Dan. Inalienable rights come from god? No. They are emergent principles of human nature, ergo "human" rights. If you want to say that comes from god, that's your business. But god didn't have a damn thing to do with it from my perspective, or from the perspective of the constitution, which does not mention god anywhere in the text.

...and if you had read the other thread, you would have understood the argument instead of stepping on a rake in a cartoonish fashion.
Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Cid » Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:50 pm

Asking anyone, including extreme masochists, to reread a thread in these forums that involves religion is, and I am using only the slightest hyperbole here, a hate crime.

Just sayin.
“Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from the totality of what is known.”

~Terry Pratchett, Going Postal
User avatar
Cid
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5337
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: "Appalacha" Apparently

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby RAnthony » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:06 pm

I linked it for a reason. Boethius on the other hand, read the thread in question, because he posted in it. He apparently simply prefers to be comical.
Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:39 pm

“They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God given rights then what’s left?” Santorum asked and an audience member offered, “Communism!”



Ah that is funny, remove religion from a country and you get Communism HA. Actually i was involved in that thread, and Dan stated that he meant nothing by it, it was a throw away line like "God Damn".
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:07 pm

Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby boethius » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:12 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.


You mean like "awe-some"?

awe·some
 adjective
1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.
2. showing or characterized by awe.
3. Slang . very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.


Time to reclaim the word from these guys:

Image
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:20 pm

boethius wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:Discount the above posts feeble attempts to defend Dan because i have a better way. Recently i have been listening to a lot of Hitchens debates about religion, in them he is often asked alot of questions about why famous scientist used the word god, his response was that it proves how primitive our language is that we don't have a better word to better describe things that are so awe inspiring. I would say that Dans use of the term "God given rights" shows that our language is primitive, Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.


You mean like "awe-some"?

awe·some
 adjective
1. inspiring awe: an awesome sight.
2. showing or characterized by awe.
3. Slang . very impressive: That new white convertible is totally awesome.


Time to reclaim the word from these guys:

Image


OK maybe awesome wasnt the best word to use, prehaps Dan can elaborate.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby boethius » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:29 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

I'm genuinely interested in an atheist's opinion about what this "thing" is.
"Boethius was the only user here to successfully piss me off IRL, and you'll notice it's been crickets from him for a while. I'm not saying he's dead now . . . but . . . :twisted:" -- DBTrek

"How about you just suck on a cyanide lollipop and spare us your fucking hyperbole you whining little nancy?" -- Cid

"If Dan had a lick of sense he'd have booted your pompous ass ages ago." - RAnthony
User avatar
boethius
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 7893
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:50 pm

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:35 pm

boethius wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:Dan didn't mean a all powerful celestial dictator when he said God, he meant some thing that goes above human laws.

I'm genuinely interested in an atheist's opinion about what this "thing" is.



Well like Hitchens said (and this is only my view, it may not be the view of the others) our vocabulary isn't evolved enough for me to properly describe what the thing it, it often leaves atheists borrowing from the theists vocabulary because, while we don't believe in god, we dont have a word that has the weight of the word god. I suppose in relation to your question it refers to rights that have been with humanity since we first became socially aware animals, that's a piss poor way of describing it but its the best i can do.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby sventoby » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:41 pm

Am I missing something or is he saying that rights can't exist without religion and using the pre-revolutionary French Monarchy as his example?
User avatar
sventoby
Senior Member
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:09 am

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby RAnthony » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:16 am

sventoby wrote:Am I missing something or is he saying that rights can't exist without religion and using the pre-revolutionary French Monarchy as his example?
That's what he is saying, yes. That is the argument that relying on phrases such as 'god given rights' enables.

Hamster and Dan are both OK with enabling these types of bullshit arguments, as well. More than happy to use 'throw away' phrases and tiptoe around the religious and the clueless (damn repeating myself again) for fear of upsetting too many people, I guess.

Human rights or Emergent principles of human nature; they are essential parts of what makes us human, and therefore cannot be removed from us as long as we live. they are by there very nature greater than law, greater than a bronze age prayer-answering skyman even, because they predate both those concepts and the language they are formed from. We cannot be human without them. One might even go so far as to suggest that you cannot be human if you deny them...
Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby Runicmadhamster » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:48 am

RAnthony wrote:
sventoby wrote:Am I missing something or is he saying that rights can't exist without religion and using the pre-revolutionary French Monarchy as his example?
That's what he is saying, yes. That is the argument that relying on phrases such as 'god given rights' enables.

Hamster and Dan are both OK with enabling these types of bullshit arguments, as well. More than happy to use 'throw away' phrases and tiptoe around the religious and the clueless (damn repeating myself again) for fear of upsetting too many people, I guess.

Human rights or Emergent principals of human nature; they are essential parts of what makes us human, and therefore cannot be removed from us as long as we live. they are by there very nature greater than law, greater than a bronze age prayer-answering skyman even, because they predate both those concepts and the language they are formed from. We cannot be human without them. One might even go so far as to suggest that you cannot be human if you deny them...


Did you read my post, or just assume it was bullshit.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Dan Carlin & Rick Santorum; seperated at birth?

Postby RAnthony » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:20 am

Yes. You offered the argument that Dan was too lazy to actually craft language that didn't give cover to nutcases like Santorum. Two different version of the same argument. When Hitchens spoke, you'll notice that he didn't make the same lazy mistakes.
Last edited by RAnthony on Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Next

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest