Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 11:04 am
Does not everyone "take the moral high ground".
All political stances are characterised and defined by taking of the moral high ground.
"You distort everything you are examining. " is ad hominem generalisation.
As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.
(You have gone all show -offy again. Semilla indeed! )
Sr Semilla’s post is an emoted garble. I have asked him to pare down to one topic or issue and if he does so I will make an effort to respond. “You people” set up conversational situations where two camps go at each other and where the outcome is preordained. “You” have fixed views and your purpose is not to be moved. You
must see this.
I examine events and conflicts from a position of greater distance. I am not necessarily on one side or the other. Sr Semillas is entirely involved with his long-established preaching and his Vision of how things should be. Every post is the same: extremely long, brow-beating, intensely moralizing.
I suggest examining this self-assumed attitude which largely infects the Left Progressive faction.
What I have said recently is that, in England, a social current is developing that takes a stand against postwar projects of multiculturalism. There is a general turn against hyper-liberal trends. As Steve Bannon says “The people have had a bellyful”. This movement is pan-European and, I point out, those who explain its roots and reasons can be accessed. I.e. you can find and read their writings yourself. Better to do this than to access digested versions (like on Wiki) or rely on secondhand versions, usually highly prejudiced.
The trend of resistance and opposition to those cultural and social projects I describe as hyper-liberal was not begun by me. I am not their spokesman. I am not their defender. My suggestion is that you sheltered, ultra-righteous assholes do better research and try to understand why this resistance is occurring.
My impression is that “you” rely largely on a predetermined vision of what is right and wrong. This vision/version is presented everywhere, and the opposing visions and versions are repressed, vilified, and presented negatively.
I did say: “You distort everything you are examining” but it is not ad hominem generalization. It is a generalization however.
The entire post in question
drips with self-righteous, high-handed moralization and is slathered in emoted ideas. Such a way of seeing and presenting views and values is distorting by definition. And to point it out is not ad hominem.
And anyway I have made it very clear that we have to examine things from both sides: pure ideas but also ideas that reside in men. What is “hominem” can never be subtracted from the equation. But everything depends on how it is conducted.
I just happen to be a Master at balance and ideological equilibrium. I reward myself constantly for my excellence. (I am considering the acquisition of a Lamborghini and that is just for my work
this month).
As Seeds' ideological opponent your proper function is to rebut Seeds' arguments.
Horseshit. Seeds is setting himself up as a Grand Ideological Opponent all on his own. And he wants me to play along with the game as he establishes it. I find it not only boring and predictable but I know too it will get no one anywhere.
Really? The undestructive wandering of a few loonies through the Capitol, with the permission of the security (who actually opened doors for them) and no injuries, at the invitation of the Dems (who deliberately refused to approve securing of the building) is to be compared with the Dem-approved riots in Detroit, Portland, Atlanta and various other cities? Or it's to offset the shooting of public officials and school children?