Why the Left Think They are Better | Peter Hitchens

First topic message reminder :

The left has traditionally seen itself as progressive, with history and morality on its side. But is history on anyone's side? And as for morality, don't all politicians think they're in the right? Should the left then give up its claim to the moral high ground and argue for policies on pragmatic grounds alone? Or would this be to undermine its very core and meaning?

Leader of the Women's Equality Party Sophie Walker, outspoken journalist Peter Hitchens and Labour MP and former vicar Chris Bryant debate left, right and wrong.

Oh and your claim that they people did not matter to the kings of the time?

Æthelstan wrote:
Nevertheless, Æthelstan’s conscience remained troubled. Even as he attempted to stamp out theft and robbery, legislating against them to an almost obsessive degree, anxiety that he might be betrayed by his own laws into savagery still gnawed at him. Lengthy consultations with his counsellors and his bishops duly persuaded him to ameliorate their strictness. “The king thinks it cruel to have such young people put to death, and for such minor offences, as he has learnt is the common practice elsewhere. Therefore, it is the stated opinion both of the king and of those with whom he has discussed the matter that no one should be put to death who is under 15 years of age.”

Clemency such as this was the reverse side of the ferocity with which Æthelstan punished betrayals of his lordship. A Christian king was nothing, in his opinion, if he did not combine greatness with care for the vulnerable. In 932, on Christmas Eve, he duly marked the birth of his Saviour in a stable by issuing a charter that imposed a legal obligation upon its recipient to care for the poor. Æthelstan’s determination that no one living on his own lands be permitted to starve saw him issue a particularly prescriptive ordinance. The officials responsible for his estates were warned by their master that fines would be levied on those who failed in their duty to the needy and the proceeds donated to charity. “My wish it is that you should always provide the destitute with food.”

https://www.historyextra.com/period/anglo-saxon/the-astonishing-aethelstan/

Maybe its time you got up to speed on history mate

Laters

Thor wrote:Oh and your claim that they people did not matter to the kings of the time?

Æthelstan wrote:
Nevertheless, Æthelstan’s conscience remained troubled. Even as he attempted to stamp out theft and robbery, legislating against them to an almost obsessive degree, anxiety that he might be betrayed by his own laws into savagery still gnawed at him. Lengthy consultations with his counsellors and his bishops duly persuaded him to ameliorate their strictness. “The king thinks it cruel to have such young people put to death, and for such minor offences, as he has learnt is the common practice elsewhere. Therefore, it is the stated opinion both of the king and of those with whom he has discussed the matter that no one should be put to death who is under 15 years of age.”

Clemency such as this was the reverse side of the ferocity with which Æthelstan punished betrayals of his lordship. A Christian king was nothing, in his opinion, if he did not combine greatness with care for the vulnerable. In 932, on Christmas Eve, he duly marked the birth of his Saviour in a stable by issuing a charter that imposed a legal obligation upon its recipient to care for the poor. Æthelstan’s determination that no one living on his own lands be permitted to starve saw him issue a particularly prescriptive ordinance. The officials responsible for his estates were warned by their master that fines would be levied on those who failed in their duty to the needy and the proceeds donated to charity. “My wish it is that you should always provide the destitute with food.”

https://www.historyextra.com/period/anglo-saxon/the-astonishing-aethelstan/

Maybe its time you got up to speed on history mate

Laters

Providing the destitute with food is very different to saying, "We should listen to the view of the people on such and such a policy since we depend on their support." You are conflating massively different things. There was no 'opposition' to the Monarchy in the Dark Ages/Middle Ages in terms of their being a huge faction openly espousing opposing views. So there was no 'Right' and 'Left' dichotomy. A Monarchy in England would have been different to a Monarchy in another part of the world, both in terms of its policies and how it came to power, so to just label 'Monarchies' of the day as 'Right Wing' is a gross oversimplification.

The idea Anglo-Saxon was some progressive paradise is farcical. How educated were the masses back then, didge? Don't make me laugh. They might have been a little more 'progressive' than later Monarchical structures, but that isn't saying much. Regardless, this is all a distraction from the main point, which is that conservatives, by definition, hold back progress in order to conserve traditions. You haven't countered this, so I'll leave it there.

1) This is getting hilarious now and once again shows the left cannot conceed how they most definately wrong on some of their views. You claimed "the feelings of ordinary people DID NOT matter to the kings of the time." When in reality they certainly did to some of the kings of the time, pre Christian and after. The political system of the Anglo Saxons, was called the "Witan" which had both secular and religious advisors on the council. They could and even did remove poor kings. This happened to kings Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria. So it was a political system, that was made up of the elite of society, that even chose their kings. But the fact is both the Celtic and Anglo Saxons, did in many cases look after their people. If they did not, then they would not have fought openly for them. So there is no gross oversimplification. The problem here is you denying the facts

2) Now I am not denying that the system had many flaws. Nor did I claim it was a progressive paradise, your words, not mine. So going off education is about as dumb as it gets. When the point being made to you. Is that progressive values, like womens rights were certainly prevalent within both Celtic and Anglo Saxon societies. Who were as seen very much an early right wing political system. Which I see, you are no longer denying, but sadly wont admit that you were in fact wrong. So just because there was no opposition to this, does not mean it disqualifies the system as being right wing. Hence the absurdity of your claim.

3) One thing is evidently clear here. That you need to go back to update yourself on history, as you clearly lack any real understanding of the past. What I have shattered is once again your illusions on leftism. Where in fact it simple revived old values on equality. It never invented them at all. So to claim conserrvatism holds back progress, when in fact it brought about the end of slavery, fought for the civil rights (this the Republicans did)  and now gay marriage. Shows again your distortion on history. The people in the 19th century and most of the 20th century were very Conservative minded. Without them being progressive. Laws would not have changed. You can deny that to the cows come home, but the reality is it was never leftism that ended slavery in this country or the US. In fact much of it was down to religious conservatism at that time, that sought to change this. So yet again you need to look at history objectively and not based upon the brainwashed version that you live by. Now I am also not denying that the left have also introduced progressive values, but they have simple revived many from the past and poorly claimed them as their own. Its why I back both left and right values. You though want to make the most absurd and revisionist claims on history, ignoring countless facts.

Thor wrote:1) This is getting hilarious now and once again shows the left cannot conceed how they most definately wrong on some of their views. You claimed "the feelings of ordinary people DID NOT matter to the kings of the time." When in reality they certainly did to some of the kings of the time, pre Christian and after. The political system of the Anglo Saxons, was called the "Witan" which had both secular and religious advisors on the council. They could and even did remove poor kings. This happened to kings Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria. So it was a political system, that was made up of the elite of society, that even chose their kings. But the fact is both the Celtic and Anglo Saxons, did in many cases look after their people. If they did not, then they would not have fought openly for them.

2) Now I am not denying that the system had many flaws. So going off education is about as dumb as it gets. When the point being made to you. Is that progressive values were certainly prevalent within both Celtic and Anglo Saxon societies. Who were as seen very much an early right wing political system. Which I see, you are no longer denying, but sadly wont admit that you were in fact wrong. So just because there was no opposition to this, does not mean it disqualifies the system as being right wing. Hence the absurdity of your claim.

3) One thing is evidently clear here. That you need to go back to update yourself on history, as you clearly lack any real understanding of the past. What I have shattered is once again your illusions on leftism. Where in fact it simple revived old values on equality. It never invented them at all. So to claim conserrvatism holds back progress, when in fact it brought about the end of slavery, the civil rights movement and now gay marriage. Shows again your distortion on history. The people in the 19th century and most of the 20th century were very Conservative minded. Without them being progressive. Laws would not have changed. You can deny that to the cows come home, but the reality is it was never leftism that ended slavery in this country or the US. In fact much of it was down to religious conservatism at that time, that sought to change this. So yet again you need to look at history objectively and not based upon the brainwashed version that you live by.

It's statements like that that make it painful not to be condescending tbh.

Conservatism DID NOT bring about any of those things. YES people then were more conservative minded than people NOW. BUT by the standards of the day they were liberal. For goodness sake, I will probably be considered conservative minded by the standards of 2118. But by today's standards I'M liberal minded. Because, for the 1,000,000th time, liberals push for change, while conservatives want to maintain traditional ways.

According to you then, the Left has never done anything to help anyone, which shows how bloody delusional you are; though in truth it's just because you are a contrarian who has to find something to disagree with with everyone.

And no, I do not accept any system in medieval past was either Right Wing or Left Wing, because they weren't. Again, there was no opposition, so no split. Also, you're conflating a Monarchical system with ideologies of people. Some people might have been progressive by the standards of their day (the men who forced John to sign Magna Carta were progressive at their time; as were the Parliamentarians who fought Charles I; so too the Peasants led by Wat Tyler and so on) other more conservative - but to say Right or Left is to grossly misrepresent a very different period in history.

Going back in time and sticking RW or LW labels on entire systems of governance really is a simplistic and pointless exercise. I reiterate, some people were conservative and some progressive FOR THEIR TIME. But "The Monarchies of medieval England were RW and progressive" is a borderline stupid argument to make.

1) Here we go, yet more lies by the left. Who will do the most absurd claim in history and claim that the Republicans for the time were not Conservative, but Liberal. When in fact they very much were. So by any standard they certainly were not Liberal and certainly did not seek to provide rights to African Americans. Only a few individuals and Politicians at the time could you class with some Liberal values. Which in fact had more bases in their Christian beliefs, but held in the main still Conservative values. This is what bores me to death, how constantly the left wish to revise history to make it fit into their political agenda. Which makes you inherantly dishonest about history.

2) Then we are back to more cathy Newman methodology. You claimed I said the Anglo Saxon society was a progressive paradise. Never made any such claim, your words not mine and proving more how you are clutching at straws in this debate. You now claim that I think the left have not done anything. Never made any such claim, with again you clutching at straws. One of the greatest things the left has done is to bring about free health. Its one of their greatest legacies. None of which I would deny, plus other great innovations for society. Though as seen, because you cannot admit to being wrong, you go into Cathy Newman mentality.

3) I am not concerned how some dishonest person on history does not think the system  in the Dark ages (another error on history, never once said the Middle ages) and pre Roman Celtic societies. I never even claimed there was a right and left wing system. I stated there was simple only right wing systems for the time. Which is in fact was the case. So it does not matter that there was not central opposition, though there certainly was at times opposition to rulers. Does not again disqualify the fact that the systems atr the time were early right wing political systems

Or are you going to deny that Monarchist systems are right wing?

4) You simple do not like the fact you are inherantly wrong on many aspects of history. The worst being that it was Liberalism that ended slavery. I suggest you look at the political views of both William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln. Whilst they certainly held some Liberal values, in the main their thinking and beliefs were Conservatism. That is a basic fact. Both were also Christian, with William being an evangical Christian. Hence it was more their Christian beliefs and not anything based on moder day Liberalism that was the driving factors behind their want to change societies. Or are you going to lie about that as well.

You see this is the problem with the left. Where actually Christians did bring about change and in fact did so based off values they took from Jesus. Again the left want to claim this as their own. Which is again a complete distortion of history. Christianity may be littered with many wrongs, but many of the champions of progression, were actually Christians and did so based off Christian values. Which now it seems the left also want to take credit for

You are making yourself look a joke mate

Thor wrote:1) Here we go, yet more lies by the left. Who will do the most absurd claim in history and claim that the Republicans for the time were not Conservative, but Liberal. When in fact they very much were. So by any standard they certainly were not Liberal and certainly did not seek to provide rights to African Americans. Only a few individuals and Politicians at the time could you class with some Liberal values. Which in fact had more bases in their Christian beliefs, but held in the main still Conservative values. This is what bores me to death, how constantly the left wish to revise history to make it fit into their political agenda. Which makes you inherantly dishonest about history.

2) Then we are back to more cathy Newman methodology. You claimed I said the Anglo Saxon society was a progressive paradise. Never made any such claim, your words not mine and proving more how you are clutching at straws in this debate. You now claim that I think the left have not done anything. Never made any such claim, with again you clutching at straws. One of the greatest things the left has done is to bring about free health. Its one of their greatest legacies. None of which I would deny, plus other great innovations for society. Though as seen, because you cannot admit to being wrong, you go into Cathy Newman mentality.

3) I am not concerned how some dishonest person on history does not think the system  in the Dark ages (another error on history, never once said the Middle ages) and pre Roman Celtic societies. I never even claimed there was a right and left wing system. I stated there was simple only right wing systems for the time. Which is in fact was the case. So it does not matter that there was not central opposition, though there certainly was at times opposition to rulers. Does not again disqualify the fact that the systems atr the time were early right wing political systems

Or are you going to deny that Monarchist systems are right wing?

4) You simple do not like the fact you are inherantly wrong on many aspects of history. The worst being that it was Liberalism that ended slavery. I suggest you look at the political views of both William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln. Whilst they certainly held some Liberal values, in the main their thinking and beliefs were Conservatism. That is a basic fact. Both were also Christian, with William being an evangical Christian. Hence it was more their Christian beliefs and not anything based on moder day Liberalism that was the driving factors behind their want to change societies. Or are you going to lie about that as well.

You see this is the problem with the left. Where actually Christians did bring about change and in fact did so based off values they took from Jesus. Again the left want to claim this as their own. Which is again a complete distortion of history. Christianity may be littered with many wrongs, but many of the champions of progression, were actually Christians and did so based off Christian values. Which now it seems the left also want to take credit for

You are making yourself look a joke mate

Since you don't seem to understand the meaning of the phrase, "Liberal for their time," I see no point in continuing this discussion.

And not that I believe I am, but I'd rather only 'look' like a joke than to have it down to an artform eh, didge?

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:1) Here we go, yet more lies by the left. Who will do the most absurd claim in history and claim that the Republicans for the time were not Conservative, but Liberal. When in fact they very much were. So by any standard they certainly were not Liberal and certainly did not seek to provide rights to African Americans. Only a few individuals and Politicians at the time could you class with some Liberal values. Which in fact had more bases in their Christian beliefs, but held in the main still Conservative values. This is what bores me to death, how constantly the left wish to revise history to make it fit into their political agenda. Which makes you inherantly dishonest about history.

2) Then we are back to more cathy Newman methodology. You claimed I said the Anglo Saxon society was a progressive paradise. Never made any such claim, your words not mine and proving more how you are clutching at straws in this debate. You now claim that I think the left have not done anything. Never made any such claim, with again you clutching at straws. One of the greatest things the left has done is to bring about free health. Its one of their greatest legacies. None of which I would deny, plus other great innovations for society. Though as seen, because you cannot admit to being wrong, you go into Cathy Newman mentality.

3) I am not concerned how some dishonest person on history does not think the system  in the Dark ages (another error on history, never once said the Middle ages) and pre Roman Celtic societies. I never even claimed there was a right and left wing system. I stated there was simple only right wing systems for the time. Which is in fact was the case. So it does not matter that there was not central opposition, though there certainly was at times opposition to rulers. Does not again disqualify the fact that the systems atr the time were early right wing political systems

Or are you going to deny that Monarchist systems are right wing?

4) You simple do not like the fact you are inherantly wrong on many aspects of history. The worst being that it was Liberalism that ended slavery. I suggest you look at the political views of both William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln. Whilst they certainly held some Liberal values, in the main their thinking and beliefs were Conservatism. That is a basic fact. Both were also Christian, with William being an evangical Christian. Hence it was more their Christian beliefs and not anything based on moder day Liberalism that was the driving factors behind their want to change societies. Or are you going to lie about that as well.

You see this is the problem with the left. Where actually Christians did bring about change and in fact did so based off values they took from Jesus. Again the left want to claim this as their own. Which is again a complete distortion of history. Christianity may be littered with many wrongs, but many of the champions of progression, were actually Christians and did so based off Christian values. Which now it seems the left also want to take credit for

You are making yourself look a joke mate

Since you don't seem to understand the meaning of the phrase, "Liberal for their time," I see no point in continuing this discussion.

And not that I believe I am, but I'd rather only 'look' like a joke than to have it down to an artform eh, didge?

You see no point, because there is little to deny my historical facts and you know this

Thanks for the discussion. Its a pleasure to help open the mnd of someone so brainwashed on history with leftist propaganda and dispell many illusions they have

Although the English took part in slavery, I thought we were instrumental in stopping it ?

nicko wrote:Although the English took part in slavery,  I thought we were instrumental in stopping it ?

Indeed mate, but the left think that Corbyn had a Tardis and went back in time and ended slavery all by himself  

Is that another notch on your bedpost, Didge. Do you only come on here to score points and to win arguement's?

I say that because most posters cannot be bothered to with you, and we are delighted you see yourself as the best debater, best scientist, best politician, best historian, best theologan the most insightful on physchology and parenting.
In fact, as you are so great at everything, there I no need or point in us mere mortals replying to you posts.
How do you find time to work, being such a great and prolific poster.
The NHS, isn't it? They could save 1 salary . I am not convinced they would miss you.

Andy wrote:Is that another notch on your bedpost, Didge. Do you only come on here to score points and to win arguement's?

I say that because most posters cannot be bothered to with you, and we are delighted you see yourself as the best debater, best scientist, best politician, best historian, best theologan the most insightful on physchology and parenting.
In fact, as you are so great at everything, there I no need or point in us mere mortals replying to you posts.
How do you find time to work, being such a great and prolific poster.
The NHS, isn't it? They could save 1 salary . I am not convinced they would miss you.

Thanks for the compliments

Now, do you actually have anything to counter my points, other than bitch about me?

@Nicko. One of the saddest realities, is that the left only concentrate on slavery by Europeans. There is hardly any talk for example. How basically even Eastern Europeans were basic slaves through serfdom. At the very same time Africans were being enslaved. Little is talked about the Arab slave trade. Where to this day hardly any African ancestors from this, now live in the Middle East. The males were castrated and the women were used as sexual slaves. Where if they did get preganant the child was killed. But even then this is not the full history of slavery and left only wish to look at slavery through a coloured glass lens. As it fits their political agenda to in fact further divide societies into mordern day racial, sexual, gender etc tribes

The left have as per usual set out to do right and end up constantly making things far worse. I mean look at Eilzels claims that only Liberals push for change. Based on that stupid thinking, to him, Hitler would have to be a Liberal. So would Mao, Stalin, Pol pot etc. Its why the views from the left are so distorted and incoherent. Its why we have now come to the point that even groups from the left are now at odds with each other. Take Feminist and Transgender activists. Its because the left in the main has ceased to stand by equality, but now looks to pushi nequality based only upon a power structured system and equality oif outcome. Which the later has to be the most prejudiced and unequal system devised by the left. Hence to them white male hetrosexuals cannot suffer discrimination. As they are seen at the top of this hierarchy of power. Again its this warped concept called Intersectionality. Which is trying to redefine things like racism. They fail to see that in fact that instead of unifying people. They are fueling and making racism far worse. The reality is all groups can suffer prejudice and discrimination

What this also proves and evident again with Andy again acting like a Toddler. Is they simple cannot counter reasoned points. They have to side track and try to deligitimize people. Hence why they look a complete joke. I mean Andy is more interested in my personal life to attempt to have a go at me. Its not only hilarious, but predictable.

So again I see wrongs on both the left and right, but also good views and policies. Yet the left seem so blind to problems stemming from the left. As seen they deny and downplay them. Where even worse we just watched Eilzel try to completely distort history to back his leftist ideology. He simple is incapable of looking skeptically at his own beliefs

Go firgure

I wasn't complimenting you Didge , I was taking the piss.
But the only piss taking you understand is drawing urine samples from your NHS job.

Andy wrote:I wasn't complimenting you Didge , I was taking the piss.
But the only piss taking you understand is drawing urine samples from your NHS job.

I have not worked for the NHS for some time now, but again you seem so obsessed with my personal life. Would you like to know what I do for a living now? Not sure what relevance this has for you. As all it seems, is that you are quite bitter of the free time I have in life. Sorry that bothers you, buts its you having the problem not me. 

It is no matter and again I take your piss take views as a compliment

As it means I have rendered your ability to reason, redundent

Have a nice day

Thor wrote:

Andy wrote:Is that another notch on your bedpost, Didge. Do you only come on here to score points and to win arguement's?

I say that because most posters cannot be bothered to with you, and we are delighted you see yourself as the best debater, best scientist, best politician, best historian, best theologan the most insightful on physchology and parenting.
In fact, as you are so great at everything, there I no need or point in us mere mortals replying to you posts.
How do you find time to work, being such a great and prolific poster.
The NHS, isn't it? They could save 1 salary . I am not convinced they would miss you.

Thanks for the compliments

Now, do you actually have anything to counter my points, other than bitch about me?

@Nicko. One of the saddest realities, is that the left only concentrate on slavery by Europeans. There is hardly any talk for example. How basically even Eastern Europeans were basic slaves through serfdom. At the very same time Africans were being enslaved. Little is talked about the Arab slave trade. Where to this day hardly any African ancestors from this, now live in the Middle East. The males were castrated and the women were used as sexual slaves. Where if they did get preganant the child was killed. But even then this is not the full history of slavery and left only wish to look at slavery through a coloured glass lens. As it fits their political agenda to in fact further divide societies into mordern day racial, sexual, gender etc tribes

The left have as per usual set out to do right and end up constantly making things far worse. I mean look at Eilzels claims that only Liberals push for change. Based on that stupid thinking, to him, Hitler would have to be a Liberal. So would Mao, Stalin, Pol pot etc. Its why the views from the left are so distorted and incoherent. Its why we have now come to the point that even groups from the left are now at odds with each other. Take Feminist and Transgender activists. Its because the left in the main has ceased to stand by equality, but now looks to pushi nequality based only upon a power structured system and equality oif outcome. Which the later has to be the most prejudiced and unequal system devised by the left. Hence to them white male hetrosexuals cannot suffer discrimination. As they are seen at the top of this hierarchy of power. Again its this warped concept called Intersectionality. Which is trying to redefine things like racism. They fail to see that in fact that instead of unifying people. They are fueling and making racism far worse. The reality is all groups can suffer prejudice and discrimination

What this also proves and evident again with Andy again acting like a Toddler. Is they simple cannot counter reasoned points. They have to side track and try to deligitimize people. Hence why they look a complete joke. I mean Andy is more interested in my personal life to attempt to have a go at me. Its not only hilarious, but predictable.

So again I see wrongs on both the left and right, but also good views and policies. Yet the left seem so blind to problems stemming from the left. As seen they deny and downplay them. Where even worse we just watched Eilzel try to completely distort history to back his leftist ideology. He simple is incapable of looking skeptically at his own beliefs

Go firgure

Actually, Mao and Pol Pot were cast iron extreme Leftists. Their problems were in wanting to bring about extreme social and economic change their countries were not ready for and through violent or inhumane means. Both leaders caused some of the worst atrocities in human history. I never deny the tragedies and crimes of the Left, nor try to imply Leftism was not a cause of their horrors.

Unlike you, who seems to want to paint modern liberals as Stalinists and the Dark Age aristocracy as happy clappy Tories with shields and swords

Eilzel wrote:

Thor wrote:


Thanks for the compliments

Now, do you actually have anything to counter my points, other than bitch about me?

@Nicko. One of the saddest realities, is that the left only concentrate on slavery by Europeans. There is hardly any talk for example. How basically even Eastern Europeans were basic slaves through serfdom. At the very same time Africans were being enslaved. Little is talked about the Arab slave trade. Where to this day hardly any African ancestors from this, now live in the Middle East. The males were castrated and the women were used as sexual slaves. Where if they did get preganant the child was killed. But even then this is not the full history of slavery and left only wish to look at slavery through a coloured glass lens. As it fits their political agenda to in fact further divide societies into mordern day racial, sexual, gender etc tribes

The left have as per usual set out to do right and end up constantly making things far worse. I mean look at Eilzels claims that only Liberals push for change. Based on that stupid thinking, to him, Hitler would have to be a Liberal. So would Mao, Stalin, Pol pot etc. Its why the views from the left are so distorted and incoherent. Its why we have now come to the point that even groups from the left are now at odds with each other. Take Feminist and Transgender activists. Its because the left in the main has ceased to stand by equality, but now looks to pushi nequality based only upon a power structured system and equality oif outcome. Which the later has to be the most prejudiced and unequal system devised by the left. Hence to them white male hetrosexuals cannot suffer discrimination. As they are seen at the top of this hierarchy of power. Again its this warped concept called Intersectionality. Which is trying to redefine things like racism. They fail to see that in fact that instead of unifying people. They are fueling and making racism far worse. The reality is all groups can suffer prejudice and discrimination

What this also proves and evident again with Andy again acting like a Toddler. Is they simple cannot counter reasoned points. They have to side track and try to deligitimize people. Hence why they look a complete joke. I mean Andy is more interested in my personal life to attempt to have a go at me. Its not only hilarious, but predictable.

So again I see wrongs on both the left and right, but also good views and policies. Yet the left seem so blind to problems stemming from the left. As seen they deny and downplay them. Where even worse we just watched Eilzel try to completely distort history to back his leftist ideology. He simple is incapable of looking skeptically at his own beliefs

Go firgure

Actually, Mao and Pol Pot were cast iron extreme Leftists. Their problems were in wanting to bring about extreme social and economic change their countries were not ready for and through violent or inhumane means. Both leaders caused some of the worst atrocities in human history. I never deny the tragedies and crimes of the Left, nor try to imply Leftism was not a cause of their horrors.

Unlike you, who seems to want to paint modern liberals as Stalinists and the Dark Age aristocracy as happy clappy Tories with shields and swords

This again shows why the left is so disingenuous and incoherent

You claimed only Liberals push for change and yet we see in history extremists push for change

That would mean the folowing

That Liberalism is extremism

That extremists are Liberals

Or that your claim that only Liberals push for change is inherantly false

Yet I doubt you will admit this and now diverge

What you fail to grasp is in fact all these mass murderers saw themselves as progressives for their societies.

This is why your arguments are a contradiction andf make little sense

Again, not once did I claim modern Liberals were like Stalin.

Your words not mine.

How many times are you going to pull this bullshit line, because you simple cannot admit to being wrong. That you have to continually lie to things I never once said?

The problem with you Eilzel. Is that you have an inherant inability to question your own beliefs. It makes you as dogmatic as any religious fundementalist

The reality is this and even today, some of the worst ideas are pushed as being progressive. Even righteous. Its why we see Muslim extremists willingly give their lives murdering others. They do not view what they do as wrong, but to them as right. It shows that bad ideas can make ordinary people do many wrongs. So change is not always a good thing and many people have suffered the consequences of such change and the left failed to recognise that. I once believed the same. Change is only good, when it does not effect the well being and equality of others and yet left wing ideas today are effecting the well being and equality of others.

I suggest you watch Eilzel

I love how you say I don't challenge my own beliefs when I won't accept your way of thinking.

I've altered my views many times in past based on quality arguments that forced me to change my mind. That simply hasn't happened here.

Of course not all liberals are extremists. And RW extremists don't generally seek to change society but to revert it to what they saw as a glorious past. Anyway this will go round in circles, I'll watch your videos tomorrow.

Eilzel wrote:I love how you say I don't challenge my own beliefs when I won't accept your way of thinking.

I've altered my views many times in past based on quality arguments that forced me to change my mind. That simply hasn't happened here.

Of course not all liberals are extremists. And RW extremists don't generally seek to change society but to revert it to what they saw as a glorious past. Anyway this will go round in circles, I'll watch your videos tomorrow.

1) And yet another misconception. Again where did I claim for you to accept my beliefs?

I never did

AS far as I am concerned you are simpled controlled by your fears and illusions. I simple wish to help you see there is many others avenues, but because again you fail to recognise when wrong. You think this is about me. Its why you still remain and act the child here mate.

2) Then we have even more gibberish and further reconition of your ignorance here. You aain see only the Far right as trying to return to the past. Except, that what happened in the past was inherantly new for the time and how again they saw this as progression

Franlkly you think like a child Eilzel and no matter how many times I actually dispell illusions you hold, you still remain defensive

So please remain dogmatic in your childish beliefs, as that way you can claim you are peretually innocent

Not once did you admit to any faults you made in this debate, which makes you as ignorant as they come and not open to change yourself

The irony

I wish you well, but you are like a closed book

Thor wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I love how you say I don't challenge my own beliefs when I won't accept your way of thinking.

I've altered my views many times in past based on quality arguments that forced me to change my mind. That simply hasn't happened here.

Of course not all liberals are extremists. And RW extremists don't generally seek to change society but to revert it to what they saw as a glorious past. Anyway this will go round in circles, I'll watch your videos tomorrow.

1) And yet another misconception. Again where did I claim for you to accept my beliefs?

I never did

AS far as I am concerned you are simpled controlled by your fears and illusions. I simple wish to help you see there is many others avenues, but because again you fail to recognise when wrong. You think this is about me. Its why you still remain and act the child here mate.

2) Then we have even more gibberish and further reconition of your ignorance here. You aain see only the Far right as trying to return to the past. Except, that what happened in the past was inherantly new for the time and how again they saw this as progression

Franlkly you think like a child Eilzel and no matter how many times I actually dispell illusions you hold, you still remain defensive

So please remain dogmatic in your childish beliefs, as that way you can claim you are peretually innocent

Not once did you admit to any faults you made in this debate, which makes you as ignorant as they come and not open to change yourself

The irony

I wish you well, but you are like a closed book

Thanks. Lectured about childishness by the man who gloats about triggering people and deletes his account in a strop every few months. I must be doing something right.

Anyway this is getting boring, so I'll leave you to your posturing.

Didge IS boring.
He is the world's leading expert in being boring.