in the lounge?Ben wrote:I would appreciate it if we could remain on-topic.
Thanks
Ben
plus,it's a counter to BuddhaSoup's ad hominem aguainst Jillete, which goes directly to the OP
in the lounge?Ben wrote:I would appreciate it if we could remain on-topic.
Thanks
Ben
Yes, even in the lounge.danieLion wrote:in the lounge?Ben wrote:I would appreciate it if we could remain on-topic.
Thanks
Ben
plus,it's a counter to BuddhaSoup's ad hominem aguainst Jillete, which goes directly to the OP
Penn is still a jerk.danieLion wrote:Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."BuddhaSoup wrote:Michael Parenti, featured in the video, is in part an apologist for communism, suggesting that he and Jillette may share an affinity for Communist regimes like the PRC.
From what I have read about Penn and his interest I would agree. I imagine what unites them are strong anti-religious views.danieLion wrote:Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."BuddhaSoup wrote:Michael Parenti, featured in the video, is in part an apologist for communism, suggesting that he and Jillette may share an affinity for Communist regimes like the PRC.
I'd make the argument, not to be argumentative, that the affinity for the PRC does fit this Cato profile.Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."
Good point. From what little I've read of Parenti, he's favorable to certain aspects of traditional communism, and critical of aspects that have manifested in the modern PRC.Mr Man wrote:But is Parenti an apologist for "olld style" communism or the present Chinese regime?
That makes more sense than what you said before. Thanks.BuddhaSoup wrote:I'd make the argument, not to be argumentative, that the affinity for the PRC does fit this Cato profile.Doesn't fit Jillete's "profile."
China today is all about unmitigated 'free market' capitalism, with only a facade of traditional communism. It is hardly the communism from the Soviet era, but a financially driven totalitarianism bent on high production, high pollution, high acquisition, with a goal toward regional and global dominance. How many Russian products did your family buy in the 1970's ? Today, who made the trainers you're wearing right now? I'd say the Koch brothers and the Chinese authorities make good bedfellows.
And committed to really bad argumentation to make their points. They are jerks.danieLion wrote:I don't believe ad hominem is always inappropriate (just usually), and maybe this is one of those times it makes sense.
I'm neither a P&T fan nor a hater. I'd just never heard those things about the DL and was wondering if the de-bunkers (bozos, jerks, douchebags, etc...) needed debunking.
It's evident to me now they're committed to philosophical materialism, and Randians are, IMO, completely retarded.
Sometimes it takes me a few tries to make sense.That makes more sense than what you said before. Thanks.