this man hates conservatives, but says something good about them.
People who get stuck in restrictive dualistic opposing paradigms of thought are weak.
“Liberal” this
“Conservative” that
Listen to yourselves…
ive never met a liberal who wasnt at least 200 pounds of muscle.
I am the devil incarnate, a LIBERAL, and I stand a whopping
5’8 and 200. I am still recovering from surgery and need to
lose a bit of weight. So 200 pounds of muscles is not really in
the cards for me.
Kropotkin
… but did you read the article?
these are discriptive words, in this case, they describe were one stands on issues. i label things, when i see a cat i call it a cat. 
Steer clear of Micheal Moore, then. He’s more like 350 lbs of horseshit. 
fine fine… maybe liberals are weak. but come on i cant see bush pressing any more than micheal moore.
I dunno, I think he’s pretty fit. He jogs, at least. Moore probably couldn’t press a supersized double whopper combo. Hard to say, though.
Moore is a shill for the establishment and a complete and total hypocrite. He sells sanitised rebellion to idiotic middle class liberals and keeps the massive profits, all while criticising the rich for controlling information. Don’t get sucked in - buy a rifle with a telescopic sight…
I have to wonder how many of you actually read any part of the linked article. When the author claimed that liberals were “weak,” he was not talking about their physiology. He was talking about their politics. And specifically, he was talking about the conflict that he sees between the West and Islam.
Addressing for a change the actual subject of this thread rather than the dietary and exercise habits of people of leftist political leanings, I have to say that I disagree with the author on a very fundamental point, to wit:
No. They are not “perfectly” explicable in that way. They are partly explicable in that way – this explains why the “cult of death” exists in Islam and not in other cultures equally exploited and oppressed by the American Empire – but other elements are required to explain why this “cult of death” is emerging now, and did not exist when Islam was the highest civilization in the Western world. The Muslim doctrines of “martyrdom and jihad” have not changed between then and now, and therefore cannot account for this change in Muslim behavior. Something else HAS changed, and does.
All religions are complex. All religions contradict themselves if one attempts to simultaneously place equal emphasis on all of their teachings. One cannot simultaneously follow Islam’s teachings on holy war (if one interprets the “war” idea literally), and Islam’s teachings on peace and mercy. Depending on circumstances, one of those teachings will tend to be emphasized in sermons and acted upon, and the other glossed over and neglected. What we must seek are the factors that have caused an emphasis on the violent teachings of Islam, and a deemphasis on the peaceful and merciful ones.
There are similar contrasts in Christianity. And there was a time in our history when Christian teachings and belief led to holy wars and persecutions. Yet today, most Christians will say that the Crusades and the Inquisition were not true manifestations of Christian spirit. And they are both right and wrong about that: certainly there are teachings in the Bible that condemn such behavior, but there are also teachings that encourage it. It all depends on interpretation and emphasis. And so it is with Islam as well.
Put very simply, if the Western powers (currently the United States) did not support cruel and brutal tyrants in Muslim countries, in order to exert secondhand domination over those countries for either economic or geopolitical reasons; if the Western powers did not see it as their prerogative to attack or invade Muslim countries whenever they wished; if the diplomatic, economic, and military policies of the West did not condemn most Muslims to a life of poverty, while supplying luxurious lifestyles to a privileged few collaborators – then the people of Muslim countries would be a lot less angry. And if they were less angry, they might be more inclined to emphasize the Koran’s peaceful and merciful teachings over its more bellicose verses.
There is a difference between weakness and intelligence.
I agree that pure liberalism is weak. This is because many of their stances conflict (how can you lean toward darwinism and socialism at the same time?). But how many people are true liberals? Most people aren’t. Liberal has become a buzz word with declining relevence.
By putting each in its proper context, and recognizing that the biological world is not governed by socialism, nor is it remotely reasonable to expect it to be.
Just because some ruthless apologists for unbridled capitalism in the past created that misbegotten hybrid known as “social Darwinism” doesn’t mean that Darwin’s theories actually had anything to do with the organization of society. They did not.
Howdy.
So are you saying Darwinism applies to every aspect of nature, except for human society?
“Darwinism” does not exist.
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection applies to the process of speciation in life on this planet, and to absolutely no other aspect of nature whatsoever.
It has nothing say about human society. It also has nothing to say about the process of nuclear fusion in the sun. Or the way in which weather is propagated in the atmosphere. Or the way in which a cell divides. Or the diffraction of light. Or the principles of quantum mechanics. Or the law of gravity.
It is a scientific theory that account for and models ONE aspect of nature. And nothing else.
Ok, let’s see where this leads.
Wait, does it exist, or doesn’t it? Your claim is certainly debatable, and not unilateral, as you imply.
Again, this is debatable.
So you want to argue semantics, now?
The topic is liberals, not darwinism. I give an example of something that some believe, and you want to argue that, rather than the topic? Perhaps you should start another topic.
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection certainly does exist. However, it is not called “Darwinism,” except by its opponents. In that sense, “Darwinism” does not exist. If you wish to discuss an idea, please use its proper name.
What the theory describes is the way in which species evolve over time. It describes that, and nothing else. If you think that statement is “debatable,” then I suggest you debate it, perhaps by suggesting what other areas Darwin’s theory might apply to. Otherwise, you aren’t really saying anything.
Your statement was that liberals believe in both Darwin’s theory (which you incorrectly call “Darwinism”) and in socialism – or anyway, lean towards socialism. You implied that there is a contradiction between these two beliefs. You are in error. Demonstrating that you are in error requires pointing out what exactly Darwin’s theory is, and why it says nothing about socialism one way or the other.
We are still on topic here.