Outnumbered in a Conservative forum (ramble)

[Lord Blackadder]

Semi-coherent rant ahead...

As a gun collector and Democrat, I find myself in unusual situations with some regularity...I'm a member at a couple firearms forums and they are generally heavily conservative. Check that - they are almost totally conservative. :o

Myself and another brave (foolhardy?) member (and Vietnam vet to boot) actually engaged in a debate in one of these forums recently in a thread about the Obama inauguration. Most of the members agreed that the financial crisis was the result of Democrat tinkering and, most importantly, the unions. They hate the unions. And the poor.

As soon as the two foolhardy liberals spoke up, (all I did was mention that Obama and Biden were on the record as saying they would not take anybody's guns away) the mods closed the thread amid a storm of hyper-conservative rhetoric. The best part was that before we posted, one of the members had commented on how he was proud that they could have a civil discussion about Obama....well, that's because everybody was expressing the same damned (negative) opinion! The moment that situation changed the thread was shut.

The thing that irritated me the most was that the only things we were trying to say were that we should be looking for middle ground, but middle ground to these people is merely a step towards their own forced disarmament. They are dug in so firmly it's mind-boggling.

One particularly vociferous poster stated that any reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment or any amendment was tantamount to treason, as the founding fathers had everything figured out and we should not mess with it. I tried to point out that Amendments themselves are modifications to the Constitution and that the "founding fathers" left us a means to alter the constitution as needed. Otherwise we would still be using slaves and women like Anne Coulter wouldn't be voting (hmm....). But he couldn't accept it.

Stereotypes are never completely true. But in my recent interactions with fellow gun collectors I'm left discouraged. They are all out panic-buying because of the election. Which, by the way, has driven up prices for me (thank you very much, paranoid gun owners!).

My point is, if you can't talk you can't make any progress. One of the reasons I'm oriented much more towards the left than the right is that liberals, in my personal experience, are more willing to listen to positions they disagree strongly with and try to make some compromise, whereas the conservatives tend to have much more conviction and give ground only when it doesn't really cost them anything.

I doubt Obama will really go after gun ownership, and I think these guys are all drinking the Anne Coulter kool-aid. But more importantly, they are unwilling to admit that their stupid guns might be less important than something else (like a massive economic crisis, two wars and global ****ing warming, for example)?

So in a roundabout way this ranty post is a thank-you to Mac Rumors members and especially the mods - one of the hardest things I've ever done in my life is to approach somebody I strongly disagree with and try honestly to work towards a real compromise. So many people can't or won't do that. The PRSI forum here is moderated closely but very intelligently IMHO, and while it's dominated by the left it is at least not in total lockdown like most forums I've visited. Logging in here is a breath of fresh air compared to the rest of the 'net.

I'd love to see skunk and some of our other resident lefties tangle with some of these crusty old codgers. I'd like to hear the popping sound produced when their heads burst with rage. ;) :D

[bruinsrme]

They want people to think guns kill people but we know that is not true. if a gun is sitting on a table I don't believe it will get up off that table and shoot someone. I could be wrongs but I don't think so.

But when someone, whether a thug or someone that just snaps, uses a gun to injury or kill someone this provides the other side ammunition to say; See if guns were illegal this would have never happened. Again another pipe dream. But this is one way to deflect responsibility of the individual and punish those that are responsibile and law obiding.

some people use aluminum bats to play baseball, some opt to use bats to beat people with, should bats be illegal. Of course not. But the rights to bare bats is not in the constitution so there realy isn't a platform to stand on to preach one's visions and beliefs.

[Blue Velvet]

The PRSI forum here is moderated closely but very intelligently IMHO, and while it's dominated by the left it is at least not in total lockdown like most forums I've visited.


We try our best, all things considering. And it's nice to get some positive feedback for once. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Nearly all political opinions are welcome here as long as people follow the forum rules. When I say nearly all, I think we'd draw the line at racist, homophobic and extreme rightwing hate speech as these are dealt with under the overall site rules.

And for those who have complained they have the right to free speech in here, you don't. I'm going to quote another moderator here from another thread which encapsulates our position:

The free speech portion of the first amendment speaks to an individual's protection from laws passed by the government (specifically congress but subsequently expanded by successive supreme court rulings to include the other branches of the federal government as well as state and local governments) that limit free speech.

Free speech as outlined by the first amendment and supreme court rulings does not apply to non government entities such as individuals or corporations and is therefore not applicable to internet forums such as MacRumors. In the same way that you are within your rights to ask an offensive person in your home to hold their tongue or leave your home; MacRumors is fully within its rights to ask its members to respect rules limiting the content of their speech, to censor content, and to expel members who do not follow our rules.

[Lord Blackadder]

Well, I don't want to turn this into a gun debate (we have plenty of those threads). I was more interested in illustrating stiff-necked unwillingness to engage in real discussion over tough issues. Many of these people are so convinced they are totally right and that others are totally wrong that they consider real debate uneccessary. :(

We try our best, all things considering. And it's nice to get some positive feedback for once.

Thank you :). I'm sure many of us are pains in the butt at times. It's easy to ban people and lock threads. It's much more time-consuming to let people wrangle while keeping it from getting out of hand.

[obeygiant]

I'd love to see skunk and some of our other resident lefties tangle with some of these crusty old codgers. I'd like to hear the popping sound produced when their heads burst with rage. ;) :D

I believe skunk would tell you he's not a leftist but a right centrist according to the european political spectrum. :)


Tell me, is the fox below a conservative at a liberal forum or a liberal at a conservative forum?

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ag0oeo.jpg

[dukebound85]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

[Blue Velvet]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

See, what you think of as liberal is actually fairly centrist by overall Western standards. Get used to how the rest of the world thinks.

[Lord Blackadder]

Get used to how the rest of the world thinks.

I'm an anthropologist by training, so I'm ever so aware of how conservative the US is as a nation. I don't see it in terms of good or bad, but it is interesting to see how so many people within the US are not aware of the ways in which US politics differs from European politics.

The one thing that does irritate me is how "socialism" is seen here as a four letter word. Just because elements of socialism are adopted in certain laws or agencies doesn't mean we are radically changing our government or way of life. In fact it can be a big improvement. Duh.

[benthewraith]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

I'm not so sure its completely dominated by liberals as, the liberals tend to be a lot more vocal. I'm fairly conservative (though I support gay marriage, gays serving in the military, etc), and yet, I very rarely go into PRSI because I'd rather get information from Drudge, Digg, Google News, etc.

Trust me, there's enough dirt on both political parties, that revealing such dirt would cause this country some very severe problems. Which is why I'm leaning towards voting Independent/Libertarian.

[bruinsrme]

For some hellbent reason it is the mission of some to take the rights of all away, just because they don't agree with them.

[.Andy]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals
No you don't. You'd be bored within an hour.

[leekohler]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

It's not dukey. Look how many times you and I agree on things- quite a bit lately. I love it when I get labeled "liberal" when I'm for gun ownership and against anti-smoking laws. Just because I think Bush was a screw up, I get labeled "liberal".

[fivepoint]

Nearly all political opinions are welcome here as long as people follow the forum rules. When I say nearly all, I think we'd draw the line at racist, homophobic and extreme rightwing hate speech as these are dealt with under the overall site rules.

Curious how you mentioned extreme rightwing hate speech, but don't seem too concerned about extreme leftwing hate speech. Oh, I know, I know... it doesn't exist. But, anyway, I digress...

I wouldn't suggest that Macrumors Forums are biased, but I think it would be a good lesson to everyone here to try and avoid the left-wing version of what happened to Lord Blackadder on a conservative forum. Whether its here or there, it's ugly and unfortunate.

Lord, I'm sure it was endlessly frustrating, and even more frustrating when the thread was shut down at the first hint of disagreement and excitable reactions by the majority. Good luck in the future! Hopefully you'll get a mod on your side who realizes that you're simply offering up another point of view, and simple disagreement is not something to be wary of.

[leekohler]

Curious how you mentioned extreme rightwing hate speech, but don't seem too concerned about extreme leftwing hate speech. Oh, I know, I know... it doesn't exist. But, anyway, I digress...



By all means, share some examples of this left-wing oppression of which you speak.

[.Andy]

Now that America has voted in a democrat does that mean that the whole country has a liberal bias?

[juanster]

The one thing that does irritate me is how "socialism" is seen here as a four letter word. Just because elements of socialism are adopted in certain laws or agencies doesn't mean we are radically changing our government or way of life. In fact it can be a big improvement. Duh.

i agree with you on this...this irks me to no end...:D

[Blue Velvet]

Curious how you mentioned extreme rightwing hate speech, but don't seem too concerned about extreme leftwing hate speech. Oh, I know, I know... it doesn't exist. But, anyway, I digress...

Since hate speech is a notoriously right-wing and fascist means of expression, I'm not sure what your problem is, unless you would like people to be permitted to express clearly racist opinions in here, for example. As per usual, anything that you see breaks forum rules, report it. Anything we think is borderline is always handled by more than one mod, sometimes several.


I wouldn't suggest that Macrumors Forums are biased, but I think it would be a good lesson to everyone here to try and avoid the left-wing version of what happened to Lord Blackadder on a conservative forum.

No lessons to be learned. This is not what this forum is about. However, what this forum is about is discussion. These are not my rules:

• Be willing to engage in fact-based debate
• Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
• Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413


And most importantly of all, remember that this is a Mac forum. This specific forum is officially right at the bottom of all our concerns which is why trouble in here tends to get short shrift.

[Tomorrow]

One of the reasons I'm oriented much more towards the left than the right is that liberals, in my personal experience, are more willing to listen to positions they disagree strongly with and try to make some compromise, whereas the conservatives tend to have much more conviction and give ground only when it doesn't really cost them anything.

(Full disclosure - I'm a conservative.)

What you're describing really runs pretty rampant among both liberals and conservatives, unfortunately. It's disappointing to hear that in a message forum you can only post your opinion if it's the same as everyone else's. If it were me, I'd find another place to post...maybe MR or something *shrug*

What irritates me more than the bullheadedness you described is when people say they believe something, but they aren't able to explain why (again, this goes for everyone, conservatives, liberals, and everyone in between). When I ask someone about their beliefs, whatever they may be, I absolutely detest hearing something like, "I dunno, that's the way I was raised," or "I've just always felt that way." I'm able to muster up a whole lot more respect for someone's opinion, even if I disagree with it, if they can explain to me with logic, personal experience, etc. why they feel a particular way about something.

Just my 2 cents. Again, I wish you had had a different experience on that forum; but like you said, there are exceptions to every stereotype. Try not to think of all conservatives as that closed-minded.

[miloblithe]

I think people (on the left and of all political persuasions) can say some pretty hateful things religious types and religion, for example. I know I certainly have.

Rather than single out groups as being hateful, we should just stand on the principle of not accepting hateful comments in this forum.

[fivepoint]

...hate speech is a notoriously right-wing and fascist means of expression...

Until you can provide some links or other form of citation to corroborate these claims; we will be forced to consider them as opinion/hearsay. If you continue to repeat them as the factual basis for an argument, it will fall under the heading of "trolling"

Just foolin' with ya, Blue. :D




I think people (on the left and of all political persuasions) can say some pretty hateful things religious types and religion, for example. I know I certainly have.

Rather than single out groups as being hateful, we should just stand on the principle of not accepting hateful comments in this forum.

+1 What sound advice.

[Blue Velvet]

I think people (on the left and of all political persuasions) can say some pretty hateful things religious types and religion, for example. I know I certainly have.


The thing about religion is that in some ways, it's unsuited to discussion outside its concerns. If people want to believe in something and can only point to a book or a belief in order to uphold that view, that's where the conversation ends.

The emphasis in the forum rules on "being willing to engage in fact-based debate" doesn't bode well for discussions of intelligent design, for example.

[Sky Blue]

I'd rather get information from Drudge

Drudge has information now?

[LethalWolfe]

The thing about religion is that in some ways, it's unsuited to discussion outside its concerns. If people want to believe in something and can only point to a book or a belief in order to uphold that view, that's where the conversation ends.

The emphasis in the forum rules on "being willing to engage in fact-based debate" doesn't bode well for discussions of intelligent design, for example.
But that shouldn't excuse malicious or hateful comments made towards someone just because of what they believe.


Lethal

[Lord Blackadder]

And most importantly of all, remember that this is a Mac forum. This specific forum is officially right at the bottom of all our concerns which is why trouble in here tends to get short shrift.

The bottom of our concerns perhaps, but near the top in terms of moderator workload! (outside all the "MWSF was crap" rants perhaps :D)

See, now I feel I've created work for you. Hope you don't have anything important on today... ;)

I'm able to muster up a whole lot more respect for someone's opinion, even if I disagree with it, if they can explain to me with logic, personal experience, etc. why they feel a particular way about something.

Just my 2 cents. Again, I wish you had had a different experience on that forum; but like you said, there are exceptions to every stereotype. Try not to think of all conservatives as that closed-minded.

I agree. I also think it makes a difference when somebody you are debating with agrees with you on something, no matter how small. "You make a good point with x" or "I agree with you in principle on that" or other turns of phrase can steer a debate towards more constructive ends sometimes.

The emphasis in the forum rules on "being willing to engage in fact-based debate" doesn't bode well for discussions of intelligent design, for example.

True. Then debate becomes more about what is "fact" rather than dealing with the actual issues. Assuming, as Lethal pointed out, that we are keeping things civil.

I could make a similar case with regards to my experience on the firearms forums. Their concept of what Obama is going to do is set in stone, and this conviction (informed by conservative pundits more than anything else) proves to be a stumbling block in any constructive debate. If Rush Limbaugh says Obama is going to do x, y and z, and people truly and firmly believe it (and don't bother to fact-check at all), then debate becomes nearly impossible.

I don't want to single out the conservatives on that either, it's merely an example from personal experience. The same stiff-necked, willfully ignorant approach can and certainly is found in persons of every political persuasion.

[leekohler]

But that shouldn't excuse malicious or hateful comments made towards someone just because of what they believe.


Lethal

Has it ever? Name-calling and the like has always been frowned on in this forum, no matter who it comes from.

[Blue Velvet]

But that shouldn't excuse malicious or hateful comments made towards someone just because of what they believe.


No, but we haven't had any recent examples in here, have we? Many Christians have had a hard time in here in the past, but occasionally deservedly so because this is not a place for sermons or proselytising.

See, the thing about this forum that bemuses me, is that we receive so few post reports from in here, that we conclude that you're more or less happy with the way things are... and I've seen this forum become far more heated in the past.

[jonbravo77]

No, but we haven't had any recent examples in here, have we? Many Christians have had a hard time in here in the past, but occasionally deservedly so because this is not a place for sermons or proselytising.

See, the thing about this forum that bemuses me, is that we receive so few post reports from in here, that we conclude that you're more or less happy with the way things are... and I've seen this forum become far more heated in the past.

I happen to like how things are run in the forums and don't report the hateful stuff I have seen because I chalk it up to opinion and self righteousness. :) But to be honest, I wish it could just be a forum for Mac users as to what the url states. Just my 2 cents.

[Lord Blackadder]

See, the thing about this forum that bemuses me, is that we receive so few post reports from in here, that we conclude that you're more or less happy with the way things are... and I've seen this forum become far more heated in the past.

In one sense, I expect things to get heated in this forum, within the limits of the rules - but the extent to which people take it is largely up to the debaters (unless the rules are broken). As an academic, I've been in some extremely heated debates with colleagues and fellow grad students, debates that from the outside may have looked like a real fight. But if you don't take it too personally and focus on the meat of the matter you can go and have a pint together later without the slightest rancor.

I think it also helps when you know the person you're debating somewhat, because you know your limits and can press your point to a greater or lesser extent with more assurance that things stay civil. In the gun forum I mentioned at the beginning of this thread people get personal quick when you express different political views. Not all of them, but there are a few real firebrands in there and they are tolerated because of their long residence on the forum and their knowledge on more on-topic matters (gun collecting in this case). The mods (who are sympathetic to these views anyway) have little choice but to close a thread when the more crusty, outspoken people start sounding off.

[Blue Velvet]

But to be honest, I wish it could just be a forum for Mac users as to what the url states. Just my 2 cents.

Ideally, yes. But this forum provides an important release valve so we don't have it cluttering up all the other forums and making a ton more work for ourselves by banning such talk altogether. This forum is pretty easy to ignore if you want.

[benthewraith]

By all means, share some examples of this left-wing oppression of which you speak.

Ever been to http://www.democraticunderground.com ?

And I thought FR was bad. There's been a few jems about how Christianity should be banned, conservatives should be locked up and reeducated, etc.

[obeygiant]

Has it ever? Name-calling and the like has always been frowned on in this forum, no matter who it comes from.

No, but we haven't had any recent examples in here, have we?

Well just recently I was called "daft" for no other reason than a difference of opinion. The rule here of instant time-out for saying "you're an idiot", is continually circumvented with veiled insults, i.e. "you're acting like an idiot," or "people who believe that way are idiots."

[leekohler]

Ever been to http://www.democraticunderground.com ?

And I thought FR was bad. There's been a few jems about how Christianity should be banned, conservatives should be locked up and reeducated, etc.

We're referring to this forum, thanks.

[benthewraith]

We're referring to this forum, thanks.

Ah, I was thinking you were asking far left hate speech in general. My apologies. And yes Lee, I've noticed you and I agree on quite a few things of recent.

[Blue Velvet]

Well just recently I was called "daft" for no other reason than a difference of opinion. The rule here of instant time-out for saying "you're an idiot", is continually circumvented with veiled insults, i.e. "you're acting like an idiot," or "people who believe that way are idiots."

Did you report the post? Do you report other ones?

[jonbravo77]

Ideally, yes. But this forum provides an important release valve so we don't have it cluttering up all the other forums and making a ton more work for ourselves by banning such talk altogether. This forum is pretty easy to ignore if you want.

Ya, I have a problem with that :( I turn the PRSI off in my preferences but I always seem to come back to it. I need to seek help. :(

[leekohler]

In one sense, I expect things to get heated in this forum, within the limits of the rules - but the extent to which people take it is largely up to the debaters (unless the rules are broken). As an academic, I've been in some extremely heated debates with colleagues and fellow grad students, debates that from the outside may have looked like a real fight. But if you don't take it too personally and focus on the meat of the matter you can go and have a pint together later without the slightest rancor.

You just reminded me of my college years. I was a very outspoken leader for the gay rights group on campus. I would argue in the school paper with the conservative columnists on a regular basis. We were all pretty much known around the campus and in town, due to our pics showing up in print all the time.

The dirty little secret very few people were aware of was that I actually got along with those guys and went out to bars with them quite often. I even lived across the hall from one of them for a while. They were fun. We saw no reason not to hang out, even though our politics on certain issues were completely opposite.

Ah, I was thinking you were asking far left hate speech in general. My apologies. And yes Lee, I've noticed you and I agree on quite a few things of recent.

Strange, isn't it? ;)

[glocke12]

which forum? Im on several gun forums...

as for Obama not banning guns....

whether you are pro gun, anti-gun or somewhere in the middle, I find it hard to believe that anyone believes Obama will not pass antigun legislation. He has a track record of supporting gun control.

At the very least, we will see the AWB again. This time there will be no sunset, and I predict there will be a complete ban on the sale of new guns, and the transfer of existing privately owned guns, meaning if you own an AK, AR, etc...you are stuck with it. Furthermore there will probably be more guns than before classified as "AW's", probably to include semi auto hunting shotguns, and semiauto hunting rifles. There will also more than likely be some type of "one gun a month" law. There is also a push to make all ammo encoded and "traceable" , and to ban all ammo that s not encoded

This all may not happen this year, but by the end of Obamas first term I bet we will see all of the above, if not more come to pass...

[LethalWolfe]

Has it ever? Name-calling and the like has always been frowned on in this forum, no matter who it comes from.
There is a habit of turning a blind eye if the person being belligerent holds the opinion of the majority (either in the thread or in the forum). I've commented on the double standard in the past and each time I'm basically told, "no there is not, ****" either in the thread or in PMs. I've pretty much stopped pointing it out because it's not going to change. It's human nature to be more critical of someone you don't agree with and more forgiving of someone you do agree with.


Lethal

[és:]

They want people to think guns kill people but we know that is not true.

Of course they don't kill people. They are a weapon and their purpose is to make it easier.

if a gun is sitting on a table I don't believe it will get up off that table and shoot someone. I could be wrongs but I don't think so.

It's the same with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It's the same with tanks and fighter aircraft. Is that an acceptable argument for private ownership of these weapons? Of course not.

I'm not against guns for sports but private ownership of hand guns and various other deadly guns is just unacceptable in my opinion.

some people use aluminum bats to play baseball, some opt to use bats to beat people with, should bats be illegal. Of course not.

You do accept that baseball bats have a primary purpose to hit a ball with in a sport. Hand guns are built to fire deadly projectiles. This is not a subtle difference.

But the rights to bare bats is not in the constitution

Nor is the right to bare guns. The right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia is. Again, this isn't a subtle difference

[Blue Velvet]

There is a habit of turning a blind eye if the person being belligerent holds the opinion of the majority (either in the thread or in the forum). I've commented on the double standard in the past and each time I'm basically told, "no there is not, ****" either in the thread or in PMs.


There is no point in commenting, no point in PMing people, no point in complaining, no point in arguing with others about their posts.

Maintain the standards you would like upheld by reporting posts that break forum rules. It's not being a squealer, it's not being like the secret police. Otherwise, we don't know about it, except for the threads that we closely read, which aren't that many.

By not reporting posts, you are the one turning the blind eye.

[skunk]

Well just recently I was called "daft" for no other reason than a difference of opinion.For the record, I thought that was a bit over the line. But it's up to you to report it, really, though as personal insults go, "daft" is not exactly high on the vicious scale...

[és:]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

I really wish this board had a group of intelligent conservative posters. People that have a genuine opinion that isn't filled with lies and propaganda. Not only would it save people the time it takes to disprove and squash the lies but it would introduce higher standards and intelligent debate.

[skunk]

Not only would it save people the time it takes to disprove and squash the lies but it would introduce higher standards and intelligent debate.I think I'm going to report your post for insulting everybody on this forum.

[és:]

I think I'm going to report your post for insulting everybody on this forum.

You're so daft.

[skunk]

That does it. You are so busted.

[és:]

That does it. You are so busted.

You know how it is; you mess with me and you'll get burned.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Tell me, is the fox below a conservative at a liberal forum or a liberal at a conservative forum?

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ag0oeo.jpg

Liberal. His ears are open as opposed to shut.

(sorry, had to go for it :rolleyes:)

[fivepoint]

Liberal. His ears are open as opposed to shut.

(sorry, had to go for it :rolleyes:)

Agreed. Liberal. Trying to pretend he's something he's not. ;)

[Peterkro]

Looks like the fox and dogs have had a bit of a chat and decided who's the enemy,I expect the horses are in on it as well.

[FX120]

I'm not against guns for sports but private ownership of hand guns and various other deadly guns is just unacceptable in my opinion.

I shoot for sport, including in 3-gun matches. Hand guns and "assault weapons" are both used in these matches, what do you say then?

So what do you define as sport shooting? What guns do you deem suitable for sport shooting purposes?

Break action shotguns, because pump and semi-auto shotguns are military weapons?

Black powder muzzle-loaders, because bolt-action rifles are sniper rifles?

What calibers are OK and what aren't? Where do you draw the line? .22LR? Remember James Brady, the person who's name is tied to the "Brady campaign to end gun violence", was shot by a .22 revolver, so obviously .22LR isn't OK to have.

[glocke12]

I'm not against guns for sports but private ownership of hand guns and various other deadly guns is just unacceptable in my opinion.


Good thing we have the second amendment to protect us from people like you.

There are so many ways your argument can be used to oppose "liberal" agendas.

I find abortion disgusting. Of course there are exceptions, but I find the fact that regardless of the circumstances a woman can have an abortion for any reason unacceptable.

I also shoot highpower and practical rifle with what people would consider "assault weapons"....its a sport, and its fun, and it does not hurt anyone.

Stop blaming guns and stop messing with our rights. Just because some people abuse firearms doesnt mean that responsible gun owners should be punished. Anything can be abused and anything can be used to kill people...

[Blue Velvet]

Well, I don't want to turn this into a gun debate (we have plenty of those threads).


This is what the OP said. Guys, start a new thread or dig out an old one if you want to bicker about guns.

[remmy]

Good thing we have the second amendment to protect us from people like you.


You're going to shoot him? :eek:

[Tomorrow]

I really wish this board had a group of intelligent conservative posters. People that have a genuine opinion that isn't filled with lies and propaganda

We're here. But as you might suspect, you aren't as likely to notice a different opinion when it's simply stated, rather than when someone slaps it about your face just to get a rise out of you. Unfortunately, there are handful of people out there who behave just that way with their opinions.

Don't be too quick to judge propaganda - that's just another word for trying to sway another's opinion, and it can certainly be done with facts. And it's also quite possible (and indeed plausible) that just because you disagree with the basis of someone's opinion, that doesn't mean it's based on lies.

In all honesty, liberals and conservatives could have some very thought-provoking and eye-opening conversations here, or in any other forum, if both sides just opened their minds and ears a little more.

[PcBgone]

Nearly all political opinions are welcome here as long as people follow the forum rules. When I say nearly all, I think we'd draw the line at racist, homophobic and extreme rightwing hate speech as these are dealt with under the overall site rules.[/INDENT]



So extreme leftwing hate speeches are ok huh? Nice...I have felt that many times over that its not ok to be on the right end of this board. You and the many like you have proven that.

[glocke12]

So extreme leftwing hate speeches are ok huh? Nice...I have felt that many times over that its not ok to be on the right end of this board. You and the many like you have proven that.


+1....

More than once I have been slammed on this board for my views. .

[Blue Velvet]

So extreme leftwing hate speeches are ok huh? Nice...I have felt that many times over that its not ok to be on the right end of this board. You and the many like you have proven that.


In my time here, I've never seen an example of 'leftwing hate speech' and it's your responsibility to report posts that you believe break forum rules.

Your personal evaluation of me is besides the point, and I find that I keep on having to repeat myself for the hard of hearing... forum members that have conservative views are entirely welcome to participate as long as they take heed to follow the forum rules. Unfortunately, over the years, we've found that many of them don't.

You mistake my political views as being representative of how I administer forum rules. Two entirely different matters.

[jonbravo77]

So extreme leftwing hate speeches are ok huh? Nice...I have felt that many times over that its not ok to be on the right end of this board. You and the many like you have proven that.

Prime example why I get so frustrated on these forums. The ability to listen but not hear anything is incredible. I to run into problems with being told I am ignorant or since I can't barf up some facts that the other person wants to hear than what I say is irrelevant, and that comes from the conservative side. The fact remains is that everyone is entitle to an opinion, but a lot of the times they are dismissed due to "ignorance" or being "daft" or whatever else they want to call it. If you feel that you are insulted in some way or someone has figuratively cut you than report it. Or just stay away all together.

[leekohler]

+1....

More than once I have been slammed on this board for my views. .

Because you failed to back your assertions with facts. What good are views and opinions if reality doesn't support them?

Prime example why I get so frustrated on these forums. The ability to listen but not hear anything is incredible. I to run into problems with being told I am ignorant or since I can't barf up some facts that the other person wants to hear than what I say is irrelevant, and that comes from the conservative side. The fact remains is that everyone is entitle to an opinion, but a lot of the times they are dismissed due to "ignorance" or being "daft" or whatever else they want to call it. If you feel that you are insulted in some way or someone has figuratively cut you than report it. Or just stay away all together.

Sorry you don't like the rules of this forum. We are required to engage in fact-based debate. If you find that frustrating, I don't know what to tell you.

[Agathon]

Semi-coherent rant ahead...

Myself and another brave (foolhardy?) member (and Vietnam vet to boot) actually engaged in a debate in one of these forums recently in a thread about the Obama inauguration. Most of the members agreed that the financial crisis was the result of Democrat tinkering and, most importantly, the unions. They hate the unions. And the poor.

As soon as the two foolhardy liberals spoke up, (all I did was mention that Obama and Biden were on the record as saying they would not take anybody's guns away) the mods closed the thread amid a storm of hyper-conservative rhetoric. The best part was that before we posted, one of the members had commented on how he was proud that they could have a civil discussion about Obama....well, that's because everybody was expressing the same damned (negative) opinion! The moment that situation changed the thread was shut.

The problem is that they're conservatives. Generally, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to. The few conservatives that aren't like this are usually the small number of non-authoritarian conservatives there are.

It's generally accepted without any thought that both sides of the political debate are "equally rational" and just "have different views", yet research has shown that authoritarian conservatives aren't quite as rational as the rest of us. That's not to say that non-conservatives are uber rational, but just that the rest of us aren't nearly as bad.

This has been brought up a few times before, and anyone can read Altemeyer's books on authoritarianism. What Blackadder describes is classic authoritarian behaviour.

You're dealing with people who cannot be reasoned with in normal circumstances. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to find some other carrot to dangle to get them to agree with you (avoid the stick, as it doesn't work too well).

See, what you think of as liberal is actually fairly centrist by overall Western standards. Get used to how the rest of the world thinks.

I'm left wing, and I greatly resent anyone calling the democrats a left wing party. The democrats are quite a bit further to the right than the conservative party in my country. ;)



The one thing that does irritate me is how "socialism" is seen here as a four letter word.

Yes, we know you all have trouble with the correct spelling of English words.*


*Although, unlike the Crazy Canucks, at least you guys are consistently wrong. ;)

[hulugu]

Well just recently I was called "daft" for no other reason than a difference of opinion. The rule here of instant time-out for saying "you're an idiot", is continually circumvented with veiled insults, i.e. "you're acting like an idiot," or "people who believe that way are idiots."

There's a fine line here. I'm sure I've insulted someone by calling their point foolhardy and maybe that's skirting it, but the point I think is try being civil. And, if you feel someone is dancing on the line, BV can come down on them like a valkyrie. Or at least a good kindergarten teacher.




+1....

More than once I have been slammed on this board for my views. .

I'm sure you've felt slighted, but I wonder if that feeling comes from having a dozen people disagree with you.

I've said this before, but the one bad thing about a forum is once you've made your point, everyone gets to respond and it feels like everyone is pilling on.

It's fair for each person to be able to make their point, but if you say something and then twenty people post rebuttals it feels like they're slamming you.

[Tomorrow]

The problem is that they're conservatives. Generally, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to. The few conservatives that aren't like this are usually the small number of non-authoritarian conservatives there are.

It's generally accepted without any thought that both sides of the political debate are "equally rational" and just "have different views", yet research has shown that authoritarian conservatives aren't quite as rational as the rest of us. That's not to say that non-conservatives are uber rational, but just that the rest of us aren't nearly as bad.

You're dealing with people who cannot be reasoned with in normal circumstances. Therefore, the only reasonable thing to do is to find some other carrot to dangle to get them to agree with you (avoid the stick, as it doesn't work too well).

The problem is not that they're conservatives, it's that they're militant and bullheaded. It happens to liberals, too.

On that note, I'd like to see the research that "has shown that authoritarian conservatives aren't quite as rational as the rest of" you.

As for whether you can reason with a conservative, you can if you're willing to have a conversation and not make blanket statements that are more inflammatory than informative. I wonder if you realize how you're coming across.

[és:]

We're here.

Even if you do say so yourself ;)

But as you might suspect, you aren't as likely to notice a different opinion when it's simply stated

There are quite a few on here that can notice the subtle differences.

Don't be too quick to judge propaganda - that's just another word for trying to sway another's opinion, and it can certainly be done with facts. And it's also quite possible (and indeed plausible) that just because you disagree with the basis of someone's opinion, that doesn't mean it's based on lies.

Whilst I receive any advice with gratitude, I'm pretty well versed when it comes to propaganda and how to separate it from people's opinions.

In all honesty, liberals and conservatives could have some very thought-provoking and eye-opening conversations here, or in any other forum, if both sides just opened their minds and ears a little more.

I much prefer talking to conservatives. It's just very often on this forum you have people coming out with complete nonsense and repeating what Rush, Fox or Bill O' say without thinking for themselves.

[xUKHCx]

I'd just like to make a couple of points:

I seen quite a few examples where it is clear that people assume that certain moderators are the only ones involved in moderating this forum.

What many people do not realise is that all moderation is available for review by the other mods and admins. And is constantly so.

Many moderators read these forums and moderate them however may not particpate. For example in this very thread I have done the most moderation, while I am sure it will have seemed to those involved that another moderator did those actions.

In fact I actively read (and moderate) the PRSI forums but rarely comment and I know other moderators do the same.


This is what the OP said. Guys, start a new thread or dig out an old one if you want to bicker about guns.

Just like to reiterate this point.

[Mord]

Interesting thread.

I must admit I envy the right wing posters on this forum, it's always so much more fun to be in the minority. I'd post in this section more often if it wasn't for the fact that every time I'm just re-enforcing the status quo, that or sounding off about things people just don't care about :o

Gun nuts have always struck me as an odd type, I've no desire to own a gun myself but I do support the right to bare arms. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear government. America's problems with gun crime and so obviously a social one that I find it difficult to see how anyone would think that pushing the gun market underground is going to help. Canada has very similar laws but their guncrime statistics are in line with countries with strict gun control.

I also dislike the sided approach to things "them and us" or "left or right" I wouldn't describe myself as centrist but my personal views are fairly mixed though tending towards liberal. We're all people, we're all residents of planet earth, while healthy argument is a good thing, excessive aggro over these things is not. We all fundamentally wish to live in a better world, we just differ in preferred methods.

[Peterkro]

Interesting thread.

I must admit I envy the right wing posters on this forum, it's always so much more fun to be in the minority. I'd post in this section more often if it wasn't for the fact that every time I'm just re-enforcing the status quo, that or sounding off about things people just don't care about :o

Gun nuts have always struck me as an odd type, I've no desire to own a gun myself but I do support the right to bare arms. The government should fear the people, the people should not fear government. America's problems with gun crime and so obviously a social one that I find it difficult to see how anyone would think that pushing the gun market underground is going to help. Canada has very similar laws but their guncrime statistics are in line with countries with strict gun control.

Tee shirts and short sleeved frocks FTW.:)

[és:]

I mean seriously, do you not expect a subject about conservatism to include conservative views and discussion of those views.

[Lord Blackadder]

Many moderators read these forums and moderate them however may not particpate. For example in this very thread I have done the most moderation, while I am sure it will have seemed to those involved that another moderator did those actions.

And like I told "the other moderator" - thanks for a job well done, and I hope I haven't given you too much work to do! ;)

Interesting thread.

I must admit I envy the right wing posters on this forum, it's always so much more fun to be in the minority. I'd post in this section more often if it wasn't for the fact that every time I'm just re-enforcing the status quo, that or sounding off about things people just don't care about :o

See, in any forum that doesn't have a balance of opinion in the numerical sense, that's going to happen more often than not. It happened to me on the gun forum, and it happens here with conservatives from time to time. It isn't necessarily the case that people want to crush somebody (although that certainly happens too sometimes), but if 10 people weight in and 9 of them have similar opinions, the lone dissenter can feel pummeled. You just need to learn not to take it too personally.

The other problem with being in the minority, of course, is that you have to respond to 3 or 4 posts every time you yourself post. Otherwise people will get irritated and say you aren't responding to them. It's more work!

[jonbravo77]

Sorry you don't like the rules of this forum. We are required to engage in fact-based debate. If you find that frustrating, I don't know what to tell you.

You kinda missed my point. I said "barf up some facts that the other person wants to hear" meaning that no matter what facts I can come up with the "conservative" (for lack of a better word) will dismiss it as ignorant or to liberal or whatever else. There are a lot of closed minded individuals on this forum and no matter what anyone can produce as "fact" they will be able to dismiss it just by saying "you're ignorant" which has happened more times than not...

No one on these forums can come up will real hard facts because there are none. It all depends on where you go to find these "facts". And most of the posts that do have "facts" in them will be over shadowed by the "opinion" of the poster or the over used "ignorant" word.

I do not find the rules frustrating at all. I find the closed minded frustrating. :D

[leekohler]

You kinda missed my point. I said "barf up some facts that the other person wants to hear" meaning that no matter what facts I can come up with the "conservative" (for lack of a better word) will dismiss it as ignorant or to liberal or whatever else. There are a lot of closed minded individuals on this forum and no matter what anyone can produce as "fact" they will be able to dismiss it just by saying "you're ignorant" which has happened more times than not...

No one on these forums can come up will real hard facts because there are none. It all depends on where you go to find these "facts". And most of the posts that do have "facts" in them will be over shadowed by the "opinion" of the poster or the over used "ignorant" word.

I do not find the rules frustrating at all. I find the closed minded frustrating. :D

Excuse me- there are no such things as facts? You must be joking.

Now I understand. You don't think that facts exist. Even my mind is not that open.

[jonbravo77]

Excuse me- there are no such things as facts? You must be joking.

Now I understand. You don't think that facts exist. Even my mind is not that open.

Ok, well I didn't quite mean it that way... :D

[leekohler]

Ok, well I didn't quite mean it that way... :D

Then please explain what you meant. ;)

[Lord Blackadder]

There are a lot of closed minded individuals on this forum and no matter what anyone can produce as "fact" they will be able to dismiss it just by saying "you're ignorant" which has happened more times than not...

I'll add one caveat to this. Sometimes, a topic is being debated in a thread. Things get heated, and in order to support their views some posters do some research and dig up some information from other sources and link it...

...months later, the same topic appears in another thread. One of the posters that participated in the previous thread gives their opinion again, and the new poster challenges it. Rather than go dig up all the info they linked the last time, the old poster simply gets frustrated and tells the new one that this subject has already been done to death, or go search etc. etc. and the new poster feels like he/she is being brushed off.

So it isn't always dissmissive, some subjects (like guns!) come up again and again. Some people get tired of that unless it's a new angle being talked about.

[jonbravo77]

The please explain what you meant. ;)

I guess I meant that the "facts" that are used become very biased by the person using them. You can come up with all sorts of "facts" but when they are used in such a biased manner than those "facts" turn into opinion. I've seen it time and time again. Someone will post a link spew some opinion, then someone else will come along with almost the same "facts" but viewed in a completely different way.

[leekohler]

I'll add one caveat to this. Sometimes, a topic is being debated in a thread. Things get heated, and in order to support their views some posters do some research and dig up some information from other sources and link it...

...months later, the same topic appears in another thread. One of the posters that participated in the previous thread gives their opinion again, and the new poster challenges it. Rather than go dig up all the info they linked the last time, the old poster simply gets frustrated and tells the new one that this subject has already been done to death, or go search etc. etc. and the new poster feels like he/she is being brushed off.

So it isn't always dissmissive, some subjects (like guns!) come up again and again. Some people get tired of that unless it's a new angle being talked about.

That is VERY true. I know I get sick of some of the claims in here of us supporting a certain politician blindly. Nothing could be further from the truth if people would just look through the forum.

[leekohler]

I guess I meant that the "facts" that are used become very biased by the person using them. You can come up with all sorts of "facts" but when they are used in such a biased manner than those "facts" turn into opinion. I've seen it time and time again. Someone will post a link spew some opinion, then someone else will come along with almost the same "facts" but viewed in a completely different way.

I'm still confused. Do you mean "facts" or "statistics"? "Facts" are what they are and don't involve opinion.

[jonbravo77]

I'm still confused. Do you mean "facts" or "statistics"? "Facts" are what they are and don't involve opinion.

I know what facts are supposed to be. But they can be used in a biased way. It's all about perception. Sorry, don't know how to explain my thinking any better. :(

[leekohler]

I know what facts are supposed to be. But they can be used in a biased way. It's all about perception. Sorry, don't know how to explain my thinking any better. :(

Jon, a fact is not disputable. So no, I don't get you. Unless you mean that certain people wish to turn a blind eye to facts. But that doesn't change the facts or their meaning.

[és:]

You can use a fact to tell part of the story. Like 'Hamas fired rockets into Israel'. If you were only armed with that piece of information your judgement would be affected. It's all part of the propaganda.

Lies by omission.

[leekohler]

You can use a fact to tell part of the story. Like 'Hamas fired rockets into Israel'. If you were only armed with that piece of information your judgement would be affected. It's all part of the propaganda.

Lies by omission.

I suppose. But not telling the whole story is also dishonest.

[és:]

I suppose. But not telling the whole story is also dishonest.

Yep. I just think that he is trying to illustrate that tidbits can be given as evidence to corroborate a biased viewpoint and even to back up lies and propaganda.

[leekohler]

Yep. I just think that he is trying to illustrate that tidbits can be given as evidence to corroborate a biased viewpoint and even to back up lies and propaganda.

I see. Well, those usually get called out pretty fast around here.

[és:]

I see. Well, those usually get called out pretty fast around here.

Damned straight they do! The problem arrises when you don't have people around that have an in-depth knowledge of these subjects. As you said, it happens pretty quickly here. We have a fair number of posters with real knowledge and experience.

[KingYaba]

Stereotypes are never completely true. But in my recent interactions with fellow gun collectors I'm left discouraged. They are all out panic-buying because of the election. Which, by the way, has driven up prices for me (thank you very much, paranoid gun owners!).

....

I doubt Obama will really go after gun ownership, and I think these guys are all drinking the Anne Coulter kool-aid. But more importantly, they are unwilling to admit that their stupid guns might be less important than something else (like a massive economic crisis, two wars and global ****ing warming, for example)?

The paranoia before the election I can agree with you. I myself had planned several purchases back in the early summer. I have yet to buy these because everything is out of stock and backordered well into the spring and now I know why.

****ing ********

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

[Rodimus Prime]

I'm still confused. Do you mean "facts" or "statistics"? "Facts" are what they are and don't involve opinion.

I think it more you take the facts and can twist them to the point that they are no longer true and completely different.

For example look in the current events on the article about the white house being in the dark ages.

the article is while using facts twisted them so far that one has to read between the lines to see that it is a pointless crap article trying to make the bush administration look bad yet again.

As for the oginal point I see it as no different than a conservative on a liberal forum.

This forum is more on the liberal side and if some one is much more conservative they are flamed and attack by a vast majority of the people here. Others will take articles that are very twisted by the media (Even major media outlets twist the truth *points to the Washington post article above)

The media is worthless these days and they twist the truth so far that it is no longer what it really is. The media stop caring about the truth a long time ago and has just gotten very bad in the past 4 years.

[.Andy]

For example look in the current events on the article about the white house being in the dark ages.

the article is while using facts twisted them so far that one has to read between the lines to see that it is a pointless crap article trying to make the bush administration look bad yet again.
Have you even read it or are you just commenting from the title? The article doesn't blame Bush for anything or paint his administration as responsible for anything. It even has quotes someone on the Bush admin complaining about the same restraints as Obama is experiencing - bureaucracy and the scope of the project.

Here is the article in it's entirety. Perhaps to clarify your anti-media tirade you could point out where they "twist facts" to make Bush look bad?

WASHINGTON - If the Obama campaign represented a sleek, new iPhone kind of future, the first day of the Obama administration looked more like the rotary-dial past.

Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts.

What does that mean in 21st-century terms? No Facebook to communicate with supporters. No outside e-mail log-ins. No instant messaging. Hard adjustments for a staff that helped sweep Obama to power through, among other things, relentless online social networking.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

"It is kind of like going from an Xbox to an Atari," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said of his new digs.

In many ways, the move into the White House resembled a first day at school: Advisers wandered the halls, looking for their offices. Aides spent hours in orientation, learning such things as government ethics rules as well as how their paychecks will be delivered. And everyone filled out a seemingly endless pile of paperwork.

Glitches
There were plenty of first-day glitches, too, as calls to many lines in the West Wing were met with a busy signal all morning and those to the main White House switchboard were greeted by a recording, redirecting callers to the presidential Web site. A number of reporters were also shut out of the White House because of lost security clearance lists.

By late evening, the vaunted new White House Web site did not offer any updated posts about President Obama's busy first day on the job, which included an inaugural prayer service, an open house with the public, and meetings with his economic and national security teams.

Nor did the site reflect the transparency Obama promised to deliver. "The President has not yet issued any executive orders," it stated hours after Obama issued executive orders to tighten ethics rules, enhance Freedom of Information Act rules and freeze the salaries of White House officials who earn more than $100,000.

The site was updated for the first time last night, when information on the executive orders was added. But there were still no pool reports or blog entries.

No one could quite explain the problem — but they swore it would be fixed.

One member of the White House new-media team came to work on Tuesday, right after the swearing-in ceremony, only to discover that it was impossible to know which programs could be updated, or even which computers could be used for which purposes. The team members, accustomed to working on Macintoshes, found computers outfitted with six-year-old versions of Microsoft software. Laptops were scarce, assigned to only a few people in the West Wing. The team was left struggling to put closed captions on online videos.

Senior advisers chafed at the new arrangements, which severely limit mobility — partly by tradition but also for security reasons and to ensure that all official work is preserved under the Presidential Records Act.

"It is what it is," said a White House staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Nobody is being a blockade right now. It's just the system we need to go through."

'Not starting from scratch'
The system has daunted past White House employees. David Almacy, who became President George W. Bush's Internet director in 2005, recalled having a week-long delay between his arrival at the White House and getting set up with a computer and a BlackBerry.

"The White House itself is an institution that transitions regardless of who the president is," he said. "The White House is not starting from scratch. Processes are already in place."

One White House official, who arrived breathless yesterday after being held up at the exterior gate, found he had no computer or telephone number. Recently called back from overseas duty, he ended up using his foreign cellphone.

Another White House official whose transition cellphone was disconnected left a message temporarily referring callers to his wife's phone.

Several people tried to route their e-mails through personal accounts.

But there were no missing letters from the computer keyboards, as Bush officials had complained of during their transition in 2001.

And officials in the press office were prepared: In addition to having their own cellphones, they set up Gmail accounts, with approval from the White House counsel, so they could send information in more than one way.

Staff writers Jose Antonio Vargas and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

Others will take articles that are very twisted by the media (Even major media outlets twist the truth *points to the Washington post article above)
Others still will even try and dismiss facts outright by representing an article as something untrustworthy via thinly veiled ad hominem attacks on the whole media, science, etc etc......

[mactastic]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals
It didn't used to be... something happened to change the previously overwhelming conservative domination of this forum. I wonder what that something could be...

Oh right! The worst president in modern times, and perhaps ever.

I guarantee you that if Obama turns out to be as poor a president as Bush, that these forums will become a bastion of conservatism once again.

[és:]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

I agree. I don't have a problem with the Liberal members, some of whom are terrific posters, I just wish there was a better balance. Even as little as 5 real conservative posters that where honest and decent wouldn't go a miss.

I really hope that the forum attracts people like that. A the moment we've got a mix of intelligent centre left/left posters who have great experience or knowledge and right wing neo-cons that don't know their arse from their elbow and just parrot everything that Fox news tell them to think.

Shame.

[skunk]

And then there's dukebound85... :)

[és:]

And then there's dukebound85... :)

Nope, he was included.

































;) (AKA only joking dukebound!)

[leekohler]

And then there's dukebound85... :)

Nope, he was included.

Hey- you guys be nice to dukey! :)

[mysterytramp]

No, but we haven't had any recent examples in here, have we? Many Christians have had a hard time in here in the past, but occasionally deservedly so because this is not a place for sermons or proselytising.

This statement really hurts because it shows an utter blindness. In the past several weeks we've had several comments that show a total disrespect for others' beliefs. One person called Christianity a crutch. Another wished Christians didn't exist. A third made the comment that Jews and the world had gotten along just fine without Israel for 2,000 years.

These are degrees of hate. If someone posted that they wished homosexuals didn't exist, I would hope that the moderators would punish them appropriately. But since the target was Christianity, it appears the poster got a free pass. I didn't complain; I was unaware of MR's rules at the time; in the future I will.

mt

[és:]

This statement really hurts because it shows an utter blindness. In the past several weeks we've had several comments that show a total disrespect for others' beliefs. One person called Christianity a crutch. Another wished Christians didn't exist. A third made the comment that Jews and the world had gotten along just fine without Israel for 2,000 years.

If it's acceptable to have religious views the surely it's OK to have views on religion. As long as they are not attacking the individual for believing what they do then I don't see the problem.

Some believe Christ and religion is their saviour, why isn't it acceptable to also believe it's a crutch.

These are degrees of hate. If someone posted that they wished homosexuals didn't exist, I would hope that the moderators would punish them appropriately. But since the target was Christianity, it appears the poster got a free pass. I didn't complain; I was unaware of MR's rules at the time; in the future I will.

mt

Comparing criticism of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, with criticism of a persons sexuality is not going to get you too far around here. They are not the same and shouldn't be dealt the same way.

[skunk]

In the past several weeks we've had several comments that show a total disrespect for others' beliefs. One person called Christianity a crutch. Another wished Christians didn't exist. A third made the comment that Jews and the world had gotten along just fine without Israel for 2,000 years.
These are degrees of hate.Christianity can be used as a crutch just as can any other religious belief. If you think this is an example of hatefulness, you need to step outside your box. Indeed, several people have posted really hateful views of homosexuality - as it happens, usually emboldened by their dogmatic Christian beliefs. The world did get along just fine without the state of Israel, though clearly to say the Jews had a great time during the diaspora would be an overstatement. This is not an outpouring of hate, simply an opinion to counter the unquestioning faith-based dogma deployed in support of otherwise unsupportable views.

[Sesshi]

oh how i wish this board wasnt domintated by liberals

Well - you're in the same situation as LB in that he's a gun collector and a democrat, and you're a conservative and a Mac owner.

:p

I too note the leanings of many on the PRSI, and what is called liberal is not even strictly liberal or left - it's simply the view from the comfort of their homes on many issues where they've picked a side based on their limited view of the world. And both parties in a classic conservative vs liberal arguments can have less than a convincing, or halfway intelligent, grasp on the matter at hand - even while some of them may be extremely erudite in textual terms.

Personally I prefer just to read, get a private head-shaking chuckle, a 'hmmm... good point' or 'I should try that' out of it, and limit my general input to throwing spitballs from the side. That's my choice. I don't have forum cred, but what do I care.

No-one you post at is suddenly going to say "Oh my god, the scales fell from my eyes!". Maybe there are silents on the forums who appreciate your input but there are better outlets for a more considered prose than on a forum IMHO. Or, God forbid, you can actually go out and do something about it. Can't deal with a forum membership, leave. Or take a break. This goes out to the OP as well.

Ideally, yes. But this forum provides an important release valve so we don't have it cluttering up all the other forums and making a ton more work for ourselves by banning such talk altogether. This forum is pretty easy to ignore if you want.

It's also a great pointer to knowing which buttons to press for any member active in it.

Oops, did I just say that aloud? :p

Well just recently I was called "daft" for no other reason than a difference of opinion. The rule here of instant time-out for saying "you're an idiot", is continually circumvented with veiled insults, i.e. "you're acting like an idiot," or "people who believe that way are idiots."

Meh. You can't expect the mods to sit down and work out every case. Many of the rules are almost unenforceable - "Knowingly posting false information is also prohibited" for example. If you were to literally apply it, I mean that's half the people who post about Windows on this forum being given the ban hamster. And as for "Giving advice you know to be incorrect or harmful. Sensationalism."... On Macrumors? Pffft :p Are you going to report every minor incident? Do the mods want to know about every minor incident? I'm not so sure.

I've had a temporary ban - and it was my fault. As Lethalwolfe says, most of the name-calling doesn't register since it supports a majority's view and if I reported every post like that the mods would surely ban me for spam ;) The more intelligent guy in the conversation should, and usually does - tread the borderline more carefully. I was most likely generally not in a good mood and probably called out someone for the idiot they were possibly being. Out in the forums at large, since my (out of experience) views contradict that of many on this forum, I would imagine posts of mine have been reported more than once. If that gets sufficient to warrant a ban - well so be it.

Just my 2c.
Sesshi aka "I wore out my welcome mat 2.75 years ago but still here"

[.Andy]

This statement really hurts because it shows an utter blindness. In the past several weeks we've had several comments that show a total disrespect for others' beliefs.
As others pointed out you are confusing respect of the right to hold a belief, with the respect of that belief itself. They aren't the same thing. Far from it. No "beliefs" should be beyond challenge. If you feel the need to try and maneuver them into such a position to defend them, then I'd suggest you already see them as untenable.

[NT1440]

Is is just me or do conservatives (or maybe its just people in general, but Ive noticed it more in conservatives) tend to call being called out as an "attack" ?

[skunk]

Is is just me or do conservatives (or maybe its just people in general, but Ive noticed it more in conservatives) tend to call being called out as an "attack" ?It'd just people in general, I'm afraid.

[NT1440]

It'd just people in general, I'm afraid.

I guess we can peg that on human nature then?

[.Andy]

I guess we can peg that on human nature then?
And human nurture.

[Sesshi]

I guess we can peg that on human nature then?

I think you can peg it on monkey nature.

*warms hands on ensuing creationism flame war*

[Agathon]

The problem is not that they're conservatives, it's that they're militant and bullheaded. It happens to liberals, too.

Nowhere near as much as it happens with conservatives. There are very few left wing authoritarians any more.

On that note, I'd like to see the research that "has shown that authoritarian conservatives aren't quite as rational as the rest of" you.

You can read Altemeyer's "The Authoritarian Specter" or Google for his free downloadable ebook "The Authoritarians" (this tells you the basic ideas of his theory, but does not include all the empirical data that his academic books do). This was discussed to death on the forum in a pretty decent thread a while back, so you could also search for that.

In general, Altemeyer's work demonstrates that when we talk about liberalism and conservatism we are really talking about a personality trait called "authoritarianism" (there's a few details, but that is more or less correct).

You could see this for yourself on the "political compass" test, where you'll find a loose correlation between left/right views and anti-authoritarian/authoritarian attitudes.

The authoritarian personality trait tends to correlate with poor reasoning on political topics, the ability to hold contradictory views, etc. For example, authoritarians will often say that a number of things are "the greatest threat to society". They are also more religious, more punitive, and more bigoted and so on.

This has all been researched to death, and is as well-supported as any other thesis in the social sciences.

When it comes to strong authoritarians, you could have the best evidence in the world and they would still believe what their authorities chose them to believe. Why do you think the evolution controversy is so intractable.

As for whether you can reason with a conservative, you can if you're willing to have a conversation and not make blanket statements that are more inflammatory than informative. I wonder if you realize how you're coming across.

Oh no, I realize, and to be honest it is intentional. In modern liberal democracies people find it incumbent on them to make the assumption that both sides of any major political debate are always equally rational (it's politically incorrect not to say so - the same goes for anyone who points out that men and women have different ways of thinking). As a matter of empirically established fact, this is often not the case. Liberals shoot themselves in the foot by making this assumption, which only works to the advantage of their opponents.

This often gets obscured by the fact that it is usually possible to find examples of left wing people doing dumb or authoritarian things, which are then used (falsely) to demonstrate that both sides are equally capable of irrationality, which simply is not true. Again, there will be some extreme conservatives who are not necessarily authoritarians, but most will be. The ones that won't will tend to be "Eisenhower Republicans", but as you know they are an endangered species (a throwback to the days when the US political parties were less ideologically based). You'll also get the Libertarians, some of whom are anti-authoritarians (alas some of whom are not - it's easy to tell the difference. The anti-authoritarian ones don't really care if society is equal or unequal, they just want to remove coercive power from the state. The others want the freedom to stamp on the little people).

Again, whether or not people like this, it is scientifically established fact. If liberals want to advance a progressive agenda, they need to find some other way of doing it than by trying to rationally persuade radical conservatives, which has proven to be about as effective as trying to talk a rock into moving or trying to herd cats.

Liberals are too nice.

[Rodimus Prime]

This statement really hurts because it shows an utter blindness. In the past several weeks we've had several comments that show a total disrespect for others' beliefs. One person called Christianity a crutch. Another wished Christians didn't exist. A third made the comment that Jews and the world had gotten along just fine without Israel for 2,000 years.

These are degrees of hate. If someone posted that they wished homosexuals didn't exist, I would hope that the moderators would punish them appropriately. But since the target was Christianity, it appears the poster got a free pass. I didn't complain; I was unaware of MR's rules at the time; in the future I will.

mt

Welcome to the world of double standards. These forum boards are a very good example of it.

You showed you list there but lets say I made a statement saying I believe being gay is wrong.

That statement would get flamed and even risk the mods getting involved but people can bash the conservative point of view and Christianity pretty short of direct insults and get away with it.

[Agathon]

Welcome to the world of double standards. These forum boards are a very good example of it.

You showed you list there but lets say I made a statement saying I believe being gay is wrong.

That statement would get flamed and even risk the mods getting involved but people can bash the conservative point of view and Christianity pretty short of direct insults and get away with it.

Welcome to the world of double standards. These forum boards are a very good example of it.

You showed you list there but lets say I made a statement saying I believe being A Nazi is OK.

That statement would get flamed and even risk the mods getting involved but people can bash the Nazi point of view and Nazism pretty short of direct insults and get away with it.

--------------------------------------------------

Most people here don't bash the conservative point of view. I am an exception, simply because I don't believe it is a point of view in the sense of an ideology, but simply an undesirable personality trait. As for people bashing Christianity, what happens is that people disagree with what Christians say and argue for why they think it is wrong.

Extreme bigoted religious anti-gay views get treated the same way Nazism does. That's not to say they are the same, but just to point out that virtually everyone will treat some viewpoints as beneath contempt, and the very fact that they do is not evidence that the view is necessarily not beneath contempt.

The reason they get treated worse on this forum is that a large proportion of the posters (perhaps even a majority in this forum) are homosexuals. There's a lot that is different about this forum than other ones. For example, people here are massively oversensitive compared to other forums.

[mysterytramp]

If it's acceptable to have religious views the surely it's OK to have views on religion. As long as they are not attacking the individual for believing what they do then I don't see the problem.

I would not try to halt anyone from challenging my beliefs. Wishing I do not exist is not a challenge. It's hate. Calling my belief system a crutch is not a challenge, it's hate.

Comparing criticism of Christianity, or any religion for that matter, with criticism of a persons sexuality is not going to get you too far around here. They are not the same and shouldn't be dealt the same way.

Elaborate.

[mysterytramp]

Christianity can be used as a crutch just as can any other religious belief. If you think this is an example of hatefulness, you need to step outside your box. Indeed, several people have posted really hateful views of homosexuality - as it happens, usually emboldened by their dogmatic Christian beliefs.

I support the mods punishing anyone who spews hate, even if they claim they have biblical support. What I don't support are people generalizing that all Christians deserve disrespect.

The world did get along just fine without the state of Israel, though clearly to say the Jews had a great time during the diaspora would be an overstatement. This is not an outpouring of hate, simply an opinion to counter the unquestioning faith-based dogma deployed in support of otherwise unsupportable views.

Show me the strength of your convictions by debating this point in the parking lot of a synagogue.

Actually, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement anyway ... the world would get along just fine if any nation never existed. But it is, pure and simple, hate speech. Labeling it otherwise doesn't make it less despicable.

mt

[NT1440]

Show me the strength of your convictions by debating this point in the parking lot of a synagogue.

Actually, this is an absolutely ridiculous statement anyway ... the world would get along just fine if any nation never existed. But it is, pure and simple, hate speech. Labeling it otherwise doesn't make it less despicable.

mt
What does location have anything to do with it? Do you expect skunk to give into peer pressure or something?

I dont see what was so hateful about what you just quoted from skunk.

[jonbravo77]

The world did get along just fine without the state of Israel,

Hmmm, not completely true. If there were no Israel then there would be no Christianity, since Jesus was born in Bethlehem. No Bethlehem, no Israel, no Jesus = no Christianity...

[NT1440]

Hmmm, not completely true. If there were no Israel then there would be no Christianity, since Jesus was born in Bethlehem. No Bethlehem, no Israel, no Christianity...

oh wat a world it would have been:);)

[jonbravo77]

oh wat a world it would have been:);)

Just for the record, I'm not implying that... I'm Jewish, and everyone has a right to their beliefs.


but it wouldn't have been the worst thing to have happen :D:eek::D:confused::p My microphone was live again, really need to talk to that sound guy

[NT1440]

Just for the record, I'm not implying that... I'm Jewish, and everyone has a right to their beliefs.


but it wouldn't have been the worst thing to have happen :D:eek::D:confused::p My microphone was live again, really need to talk to that sound guy
For the record, that was me implying that:p

But no, i beleive if any of those religions didnt exist there would simply just be different ones. Its human nature to want answers to questions....

[mysterytramp]

As others pointed out you are confusing respect of the right to hold a belief, with the respect of that belief itself. They aren't the same thing. Far from it. No "beliefs" should be beyond challenge. If you feel the need to try and maneuver them into such a position to defend them, then I'd suggest you already see them as untenable.

I have no problem with someone challenging my beliefs. I've gladly debated them, and I've tried to remain civil and respectful to those points of view all the while. But the thrust of this thread has been that only one side is using hateful speech, and that's just inaccurate.

Calling a belief system a crutch is disrespectful. Wishing I didn't exist is wrong. Trying to make some ridiculous argument that Jews would be better off without Israel is hateful ... and moronic. Someone can make the argument that the Scots would be better off without the U.K., or the Native American nations would be better off without the U.S., and they'd have volumes of facts on their side. But to say Jews would be better off without Israel is to ignore the sum of recorded human history just to advance a political POV. People can have that belief, but they should realize that others are going to see it as hateful, and expect to be treated accordingly.

mt

[mactastic]

Liberals are too nice.
I know everyone says that about me. :p

[mysterytramp]

What does location have anything to do with it? Do you expect skunk to give into peer pressure or something?

I dont see what was so hateful about what you just quoted from skunk.

One, it's very easy to hide behind anonymity; I'd bank on skunk having more empathy than his posts are letting on. Two, in response to your last statement, let's just say that my reading of the history of the Jews does not support the statement that Jews got along just fine for 2,000 years without Israel.

mt

[63dot]

Semi-coherent rant ahead...

As a gun collector and Democrat, I find myself in unusual situations...

Being a Christian and Pro-Life and having voted Democrat or Green Party virtually all my life, I can see your situation. ;)

We are people, not platforms via Gingrich (right wing) or Brown/Pelosi (left wing).

[NT1440]

let's just say that my reading of the history of the Jews does not support the statement that Jews got along just fine for 2,000 years without Israel.

mt

And thats hate speech because......

[jonbravo77]

In my opinion, the only reason to "challenge" someone else's beliefs is because you are insecure of your own. And vise versa, to feel you have to defend your beliefs to anyone is because you are trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are right.

I have ran into people who you can yell at them that their beliefs are screwed up and wrong and you can pull out facts to why their beliefs don't make sense and are not proven and they stand there and take it and say, that's your right to believe what you want. Those people are secure in what they believe, and I have respect for those people, and I only have now become secure in what I believe after years of searching wether it's religious or political and now I am finding it easier and easier to sit there and take anyone's criticism and say "well that's what you believe", I still have a long way to go.

[NT1440]

To counter: I can't respect someone who is set in their ways even if proven wrong.

Now don't take that as a I hate religious folk talk, I just mean people who will almost literally go to the lengths of covering their ears and singing to block out facts during discussions on things like evolution.

And that covers all topics, not just religion.

[mysterytramp]

And thats hate speech because......

I invite you to read the history of the Jews from about the Second Century A.D. to the creation of Israel in 1948. To say they got along just fine is about like saying a homeless person gets along just fine in a cardboard box, but that's just my opinion.

mt

[jonbravo77]

To counter: I can't respect someone who is set in their ways even if proven wrong.

Now don't take that as a I hate religious folk talk, I just mean people who will almost literally go to the lengths of covering their ears and singing to block out facts during discussions on things like evolution.

And that covers all topics, not just religion.

I can certainly understand this. But, who does it affect more, the person set in their ways are the person spitting into the wind trying to change someone's ways?

There has to come a time when enough is enough, and the understanding that there is nothing you can say or do to prove someone wrong. And there is a difference between stubbornness and being secure it what you believe. Stubborn individuals will cover there ears and sing a song, a secure person will allow you to say what you have to say and then tell you "it's because what I believe, you have your beliefs, and I have mine, no right or wrong about it."

[.Andy]

In my opinion, the only reason to "challenge" someone else's beliefs is because you are insecure of your own.
This is demonstrably false. For example do you think that challenging a terrorist's belief that they will be rewarded a martyr with heaven only initiated out of a insecure beliefs? Of course not. Does challenging the belief that sleeping with virgins will cure AIDS only initiate out of insecure beliefs? Of course not. To claim so is preposterous.

Attacking those that challenge your or others beliefs as "insecure" is nothing more than an ad hominem. A convenient, intellectually lazy, and logically flawed way to avoid criticism.

Stubborn individuals will cover there ears and sing a song, a secure person will allow you to say what you have to say and then tell you "it's because what I believe, you have your beliefs, and I have mine, no right or wrong about it."
See above AIDS example. There's lashings of "wrong" to go around when it comes to beliefs.

[jonbravo77]

This is demonstrably false. For example do you think that challenging a terrorist's belief that they will be rewarded a martyr with heaven only initiated out of a insecure beliefs? Of course not. Does challenging the belief that sleeping with virgins will cure AIDS only initiate out of insecure beliefs? Of course not. To claim so is preposterous.

Attacking those that challenge your or others beliefs as "insecure" is nothing more than an ad hominem. A convenient, intellectually lazy, and logically flawed way to avoid criticism.


See above AIDS example. There's lashings of "wrong" to go around when it comes to beliefs.

I find it funny... You prove my point of "insecurity". You will sit here telling how flawed I am or "intellectually lazy" because I don't buy into what you want me to believe. And that's where it stands, something you want me to believe. So like I said, where does it end? I'd like to hear anyone's answer to that, where does it end?

[leekohler]

I find it funny... You prove my point of "insecurity". You will sit here telling how flawed I am or "intellectually lazy" because I don't buy into what you want me to believe. And that's where it stands, something you want me to believe. So like I said, where does it end? I'd like to hear anyone's answer to that, where does it end?

No- you just proved his point. And it won't end, unless you want it to.

[jonbravo77]

No- you just proved his point. And it won't end, unless you want it to.

Well crap, I wasn't trying to prove his point... :D

[és:]

I would not try to halt anyone from challenging my beliefs. Wishing I do not exist is not a challenge. It's hate. Calling my belief system a crutch is not a challenge, it's hate.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't hate. Also, hating religion is a perfectly acceptable position.



Elaborate.


What's to elaborate on. If you can't see the difference between something you chose to believe in based on a book that has been roundly debunked by the intellectual community and your sexuality, which you have no choice about, then you need help.

[Badandy]

If liberals want to advance a progressive agenda, they need to find some other way of doing it than by trying to rationally persuade radical conservatives, which has proven to be about as effective as trying to talk a rock into moving or trying to herd cats.


Perhaps authoritarianism?



And for curiosity's sake, what would you suggest?

[mysterytramp]

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't hate. Also, hating religion is a perfectly acceptable position.

Hate religion all you want. No qualms from me. Wishing I didn't exist or minimizing the painful arc of 2,000 years of history crosses a line. You do see the difference?

What's to elaborate on. If you can't see the difference between something you chose to believe in based on a book that has been roundly debunked by the intellectual community and your sexuality, which you have no choice about, then you need help.

I don't expect a heterosexual to understand what it's like to be homosexual. I do expect them to empathize with the difficulties they face in our society.

Likewise, I don't expect a nonbeliever to understand what it's like to be a believer. To say that belief is a choice coming from a book thoroughly misunderstands what it means to believe. I don't expect you to understand, but I do expect respect, rather, I expect you to show me the respect I've shown you.

A theme running through these posts appears to be that because some people have cloaked their hatred with a garment of Christian doctrine, all Christians therefore are deserving of enmity. A generalization like that, in the face of an individual has not expressed such views, is an intellectually dishonest position.

Maybe because of prior acts, people claiming to be Christians deserve your skepticism. Granted. But that doesn't mean I deserve your disrespect.

mt

[Rodimus Prime]

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it isn't hate. Also, hating religion is a perfectly acceptable position.



Hate is NEVER an acceptable position. If you can not understand that then I feel sorry for you.

It is something I do not wish on any one. Hate is an emotion. that is learned and it is cold and not a fun one. It leaves you hollow and destroys everything that makes us human. This is coming from experiences from some darker times in my life.

[BigHungry04]

This is why beer is better than Jesus. You don't have to wait 2,000+ years for your second beer. It also doesn't get you in to fights about religion.

[Lord Blackadder]

For me, hate is a stumbling block to any real progress on an issue. Yes, we use "hate" as a figure of speech, often when we mean something a little less extreme.

True hate is an extreme, irrational, emotion-based approach to anything. I'll use religion as an example since we're talking about it here, but to keep the thread more or less on-topic this could apply to any subject in a forum where people have strong and diverging opinions. If someone truly hates religion then they are incapable of ever living at peace with religious people on any level or even interacting with them rationally.

I can understand someone saying they have deep suspicion about organized religion. I can understand people saying that misguided religious zeal is responsible for a great many evils. I can understand people hating many of the acts that misguided religious fanatics commit. I can understand people being very frustrated with religious people and politics. But to broadly hate religion as a result? Well, however justified one might feel in doing it, I think that it's ultimately wrong.

I couldn't count the number of times some fundamentalist has thumped me with a bible over some issue or another, and I felt like thumping them with my fist. Religion has left me frustrated many times, but I think I have a responsibility to recognize that the vast majority of the problems are caused by people twisting religion towards their own ends rather than really embracing the message, and that if people are blinded by religious zeal, all the more reason we should not allow ourselves to be blinded by a reactionary hatred.

You don't have to agree with it or even like it, but to hate it is counterproductive in the extreme.

[és:]

Hate religion all you want. No qualms from me. Wishing I didn't exist or minimizing the painful arc of 2,000 years of history crosses a line. You do see the difference?

I see the difference between the two things. I never said anything about wishing you didn't exist. Actually, let's go back and have a look at what I did say:

As long as they are not attacking the individual

Can you see the difference between what I've said and what you're arguing against?

To say that belief is a choice coming from a book thoroughly misunderstands what it means to believe.

I didn't say belief is a choice. I said that you choose to believe something. Religion is a choice. As we were talking about Christianity I mentioned the Bible. See the difference between what I've said and what you're attributing to me.

Religion is a choice. You have to ignore the inconsistency in the Bible. You have to defy logic.

I don't expect you to understand

I understand perfectly well.

but I do expect respect, rather, I expect you to show me the respect I've shown you.

I'm talking about religion, not the religious. See the difference between the two?

I start from a neutral position when it comes to respect. I don't respect or disrespect anybody unless they are worthy of respect or disrespect. That applies to all people. Things, on the other hand, don't need to be respected or disrespected, just credible or not.

A theme running through these posts appears to be that because some people have cloaked their hatred with a garment of Christian doctrine, all Christians therefore are deserving of enmity. A generalization like that, in the face of an individual has not expressed such views, is an intellectually dishonest position.

Maybe because of prior acts, people claiming to be Christians deserve your skepticism. Granted. But that doesn't mean I deserve your disrespect.

mt

Now you're just making things up.

[és:]

Hate is NEVER an acceptable position.

Of course it is. I hate murders, pedophiles and all sorts of other things. Some people believe that religion causes vastly more harm than good, some believe it is dishonest and counterproductive to intelligent thought and human advancement. Why wouldn't hating that be an acceptable position.

If you can not understand that then I feel sorry for you.

Well, you know where you can put your pity. Thanks.

It is something I do not wish on any one. Hate is an emotion. that is learned and it is cold and not a fun one. It leaves you hollow and destroys everything that makes us human. This is coming from experiences from some darker times in my life.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


True hate is [...] irrational

It can be completely rational.

[skunk]

Wishing I didn't exist or minimizing the painful arc of 2,000 years of history crosses a line. You do see the difference?Who has expressed a wish that you did not exist? The last 2,000 years of history has been painful for a great many people, not just the Jews, quite often because of conflicts which were stoked by religious differences. To single out the Jews, the Huguenots, the Catholics or the Jehovah's Witnesses is superfluous detail. Monotheistic religion has brought untold misery simply by dressing up philosophy as something ordained by a particular god in opposition to others. And by demanding respect.

To say that belief is a choice coming from a book thoroughly misunderstands what it means to believe. I don't expect you to understand, but I do expect respect, rather, I expect you to show me the respect I've shown you.The very fact of your saying this is a way of demanding undue respect. Who cares if you think some deity is speaking to you? A lack of respect for a secondhand morality is not the same as enmity or hatred.

[mactastic]

Hate is NEVER an acceptable position. If you can not understand that then I feel sorry for you.

It is something I do not wish on any one. Hate is an emotion. that is learned and it is cold and not a fun one. It leaves you hollow and destroys everything that makes us human. This is coming from experiences from some darker times in my life.
You'd fit right in in Santa Cruz then. The city council actually held a debate about the possibility of outlawing hatred within city limits. :D

Of COURSE hatred is an acceptable, and natural, position -- on occasion. Just don't let it consume your life. It's ok to hate going to the dentist. Doesn't mean you don't go, but you don't have to like it, right?

[LethalWolfe]

Some people believe that religion causes vastly more harm than good, some believe it is dishonest and counterproductive to intelligent thought and human advancement. Why wouldn't hating that be an acceptable position.
Because some people believe the same thing about black people, or Mexicans, or Palestinians. There is a difference between hating specific people for specific reasons (such as murders to use your example) and hating entire groups of people indiscriminately. Painting w/such a broad, destructive brush is not productive, IMO. Hate breeds hate.


Lethal

[skunk]

It's ok to hate going to the dentist. Doesn't mean you don't go, but you don't have to like it, right?That isn't really the kind of hate we're talking about, though, is it?

[Lord Blackadder]

That isn't really the kind of hate we're talking about, though, is it?

Indeed, could that even be termed hate? We use the term rather casually.

[hulugu]

Indeed, could that even be termed hate? We use the term rather casually.

I disagree. I hate my dentist, that ********** sadistic bastard. :D

[Rodimus Prime]

You'd fit right in in Santa Cruz then. The city council actually held a debate about the possibility of outlawing hatred within city limits. :D

Of COURSE hatred is an acceptable, and natural, position -- on occasion. Just don't let it consume your life. It's ok to hate going to the dentist. Doesn't mean you don't go, but you don't have to like it, right?

well I would get arrested there. I still carry a lot of hatrid with me and struggle with it every day. Just was more making a point.

[és:]

Because some people believe the same thing about black people, or Mexicans, or Palestinians. There is a difference between hating specific people for specific reasons (such as murders to use your example) and hating entire groups of people indiscriminately. Painting w/such a broad, destructive brush is not productive, IMO. Hate breeds hate.


Lethal

For goodness sake. Religion isn't the same thing as race and sexuality. Horrific comparison.

There are very legitimate reasons to hate religion, there are no legitimate reasons to hate a race or sexuality.

[Rodimus Prime]

For goodness sake. Religion isn't the same thing as race and sexuality. Horrific comparison.

There are very legitimate reasons to hate religion, there are no legitimate reasons to hate a race or sexuality.

es you are treading on thin ice.

A lot of the "legitimate reasons" I have seen for you to think of hating a religion could easily be used to say I hating *Blank race*

Now a much easier target for your reasoning is sexuality. I could think of arguments for hating homosexuals with in the bounds of your arguments for hating religion. Just point it out.

*Please note I am not saying anything again Homosexuals nor do I hate them. and not going to get into that debate. just it is the easiest one to point out a flaw in es agruments and staying with in his limitiations.

[skunk]

There are very legitimate reasons to hate religion, there are no legitimate reasons to hate a race or sexuality.People will find legitimate reasons to hate any group: Christians, Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, blacks. Hate and fear: two sides of the same debased coinage.

[és:]

es you are treading on thin ice.

I'm on the safest ground I can possibly be. I've no religion and I'm not biased for or against religeous people.

A lot of the "legitimate reasons" I have seen for you to think of hating a religion could easily be used to say I hating *Blank race*

Don't be ridiculous. Name one.

Now a much easier target for your reasoning is sexuality. I could think of arguments for hating homosexuals with in the bounds of your arguments for hating religion.

Then go for it. Without using religious dogma to back it up, of course.

just it is the easiest one to point out a flaw in es agruments and staying with in his limitiations.

You've not pointed any limitations out. You've said 'I could think of' twice but haven't named anything.

[és:]

People will find legitimate reasons to hate any group: Christians, Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, blacks. Hate and fear: two sides of the same debased coinage.

I'd like to hear one legitimate reason to hate homosexuals or blacks (or any other ethnicity or race). You can't find a legitimate reason if it isn't there.

I don't even think that you could find a legitimate reason to hate Christians, Muslims or Jews. Christianity, Islam and Judaism on the other hand...

[Rodimus Prime]

I'm on the safest ground I can possibly be. I've no religion and I'm not biased for or against religeous people.



Don't be ridiculous. Name one.



Then go for it. Without using religious dogma to back it up, of course.



You've not pointed any limitations out. You've said 'I could think of' twice but haven't named anything.

Please read the last line of my post with me stating I was not going to get into that part of the debate. It is crossing some lines I am not willing to cross and yes I could think of reasons for hating gays as you put it with out using religion it is not hard.

I just know better than to post any of those reasons on these board because
A) I do not agree with the statements and even if I did

B) it opens up another list of problems and these tread would get lock very quickly and I risk getting banned for it so again not going to do it.

C) I prefer to keep my integrity and not sink to your level. As if I did sink that low you would beat me with experience.

[és:]

Please read the last line of my post with me stating I was not going to get into that part of the debate.

Well, that's awesome. Say something you can't back up and them wimp out. Not the first time I've seen you remove yourself from a conversation that you don't have the rigour to see out.

I could think of reasons for hating gays as you put it with out using religion it is not hard.

I said legitimate reasons.


C) I prefer to keep my integrity and not sink to your level. As if I did sink that low you would beat me with experience.

Firstly, that would assume you had any integrity. Secondly, what is my level?

Lightweight.

[skunk]

I'd like to hear one legitimate reason to hate homosexuals or blacks (or any other ethnicity or race). You can't find a legitimate reason if it isn't there.Legitimacy is in the mind of the legitimiser.

[Rodimus Prime]

Well, that's awesome. Say something you can't back up and them wimp out. Not the first time I've seen you remove yourself from a conversation that you don't have the rigour to see out.



I said legitimate reasons.


if that is your line of thought then I want legitimate reasons for hating religion because so far most if not all of them I seen from you are weak at best.

[és:]

Legitimacy is in the mind of the legitimiser.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. :D

[és:]

if that is your line of thought then I want legitimate reasons for hating religion because so far most if not all of them I seen from you are weak at best.

And there I was thinking you were not stooping to my level. You're truly above me, just because you say you are. :rolleyes:

If you truly believed that my reasons are weak then you would have countered them. You haven't because you can't.

[leekohler]

I can list some legitimate reasons to dislike religion:

1. When I came out, the people who rejected me were all religious- every last one of them. Some have still not spoken to me to this day. Many religions have fought against equal rights for gay people for decades. That doesn't exactly leave me with a warm feeling for religion.

2. Many organized religions actively preach against science, setting progress back years in some cases.

3. Religion can often be the enemy of logic, preferring belief over fact.

4. Many organized religions try to instill their values on others through the legal process, ignoring that others have the right to their own moral code.

This in no way means I hate religion, but it sure isn't my favorite thing in the world. And of course, there are many very good religious people out there who do none of these things.

[zombie1210]

Most organized religious groups are bunko artists and thieves.

[63dot]

I can list some legitimate reasons to dislike religion:

1. When I came out, the people who rejected me were all religious- every last one of them. Some have still not spoken to me to this day. Many religions have fought against equal rights for gay people for decades. That doesn't exactly leave me with a warm feeling for religion.

2. Many organized religions actively preach against science, setting progress back years in some cases.

3. Religion can often be the enemy of logic, preferring belief over fact.

4. Many organized religions try to instill their values on others through the legal process, ignoring that others have the right to their own moral code.

This in no way means I hate religion, but it sure isn't my favorite thing in the world. And of course, there are many very good religious people out there who do none of these things.

Sorry to hear that.

There are still people, of all religions, who accept gay, straight, or bi. The main focus for most religions is not sexuality but spirituality and if someone wants to be a bigot and hate you, they are missing the main point of their said religion. Chances are they are more wrapped up in hate, and not understanding.

[leekohler]

Sorry to hear that.

There are still people, of all religions, who accept gay, straight, or bi. The main focus for most religions is not sexuality but spirituality and if someone wants to be a bigot and hate you, they are missing the main point of their said religion. Chances are they are more wrapped up in hate, and not understanding.

Oh, I understand that. People were just asking for legitimate reasons to hate religion, so I was just illustrating a few from my POV. Of course there are many that do not do what I described, but there are far too many that do. And it really is too bad.

[zombie1210]

There is a huge difference between being religious, and disliking "religion".

[EricNau]

There are very legitimate reasons to hate religion, there are no legitimate reasons to hate a race or sexuality.
Exactly. You can't legitimately judge someone based on who they are, be it race, sexuality, or any other biological trait. Judgements should be made on actions alone.

Religion, unlike the aforementioned traits, is a choice, and as such, an action worthy of judgement.

[63dot]

Organized religions judge everyone.

Many do, but I would not say every organized religion judges everyone. Certainly more religions judge some people than judge all people.

[63dot]

They are expressing a point of view that is rather common, that's all, even though I don't agree with them. It's not much different than people who think licorice is one of the great things in life, which I don't agree with at all. :)

[SmartIndianKid]

I don't think he/she is a troll.

They are expressing a point of view that is rather common, that's all, even though I don't agree with them. It's not much different than people who think licorice is one of the great things in life, which I don't agree with at all. :)

All they've contributed to this thread is "sarcasm," one statement about organized religion with no backup, and the word "that." In essence, nothing of substance.

In fact, two of those statements were worded in a manner to elicit a specific inflammatory response. Would you not consider the combination of the above trolling?

[63dot]

All they've contributed to this thread is "sarcasm," one statement about organized religion with no backup, and the word "that." In essence, nothing of substance.

In fact, two of those statements were worded in a manner to elicit a specific inflammatory response. Would you not consider the combination of the above trolling?

If that was the person's intent, then they are a troll. I just hope it's not since I am so tired of trolls. Let them join the production team of "punk'd" or something. ;)

[mactastic]

All they've contributed to this thread is "sarcasm," one statement about organized religion with no backup, and the word "that." In essence, nothing of substance.

In fact, two of those statements were worded in a manner to elicit a specific inflammatory response. Would you not consider the combination of the above trolling?
I'm smelling a troll as well...

[zombie1210]

Calling someone a troll is the easy way out. It works on most internet forums whose membership is very young. It's a way on initiating an attack or retaliating, without having to say anything,

BTW....I hate licorice.
:D

[NT1440]

Calling someone a troll is the easy way out. It works on most internet forums whose membership is very young. It's a way on initiating an attack or retaliating, without having to say anything,

BTW....I hate licorice.
:D

Or its a way to let someone know that they are contributing absolutely nothing and/or breaking forum rules.

[zombie1210]

So, trolling?

Everyone judges everyone. Get it?

We do it because it is our nature. This thread itself is sitting in judgment. I'm no troll, but you judge me as such.

[zombie1210]

Or its a way to let someone know that they are contributing absolutely nothing and/or breaking forum rules.

I thoroughly disagree with the liberal tea some of you guys are drinking, so I'm a troll. Your judgment says nothing, but you miss points right and left. Go figure.

A non heated political disussion is not a political discussion. its an editorial.

[NT1440]

I thoroughly disagree with the liberal tea some of you guys are drinking, so I'm a troll. Your judgment says nothing, but you miss points right and left. Go figure.

Funny how all I did was give you the definition of a troll, correcting your misguided view of what it is. I wasn't calling you a troll there at all, merely using your post as a springboard.

But hey, everyones out to get you guys right?

[leekohler]

I thoroughly disagree with the liberal tea some of you guys are drinking, so I'm a troll. Your judgment says nothing, but you miss points right and left. Go figure.

A non heated political disussion is not a political discussion. its an editorial.

I'm still trying to figure out what points you're trying to make. A lot of your posts have been extremely vague.

[mysterytramp]

I see the difference between the two things. I never said anything about wishing you didn't exist.

** sigh ** Go back through the thread and you'll find that I provided what I believed to be three recent egregious examples of anti-Christian statements. One was a poster who wished no religious people existed. I take offense to that.

I didn't say belief is a choice. I said that you choose to believe something.

Your previous statement:

If you can't see the difference between something you chose to believe in based on a book ...

I'm not sure what semantic nut you're trying to crack. But this is true: I don't believe something because it's in a book. I believe something because it's in my heart. I don't expect you to understand that. All I ask is that you respect it just as I respect your position.

Now you're just making things up.

Over and over, I've read through this thread generalizations on Christians based possibly on personal experience but not based on empirical evidence. "Many Christians believe ..." And to be intellectually honest, the last person who should be spouting what Christians believe or do is an atheist.

mt

[NT1440]

Just so you know, Lee is in his mid 40's and I'm 17, so if that was some sort of jab at age, your lost.

[mysterytramp]

I can list some legitimate reasons to dislike religion:

1. When I came out, the people who rejected me were all religious- every last one of them. Some have still not spoken to me to this day. Many religions have fought against equal rights for gay people for decades. That doesn't exactly leave me with a warm feeling for religion.

2. Many organized religions actively preach against science, setting progress back years in some cases.

3. Religion can often be the enemy of logic, preferring belief over fact.

4. Many organized religions try to instill their values on others through the legal process, ignoring that others have the right to their own moral code.

This in no way means I hate religion, but it sure isn't my favorite thing in the world. And of course, there are many very good religious people out there who do none of these things.

Lee --

I am sorry for what happened to you. For No. 1, the people who hurt you may have claimed to be Christians, but their actions were counter to everything Christ taught. If it's any solace, if these people are remotely correct in their beliefs, they have a rude awakening waiting for them in their afterlife.

For your other points, I'll defend your right to believe them. But where you say "many," I would say "some." Where you say "often," I would say "sometimes." And I think I have empirical data to support my position. Maybe someday, on a different thread, we can debate it.

::)

mt

[leekohler]

This is an example of the trolling we are talking about. Unless that post has some sort of actual meaning behind it of course.

Just so you know, Lee is in his mid 40's and I'm 17, so if that was some sort of jab at age, your lost.

41- early 40's, young padawan. ;)

[SmartIndianKid]

Everyone judges everyone. Get it?

We do it because it is our nature. This thread itself is sitting in judgment. I'm no troll, but you judge me as such.

I'm judging you, and you're undoubtedly judging me. But neither of us are contributing anything to this thread, so how about we both stop posting in it?

[NT1440]

41- early 40's, young padawan. ;)

My bad, I seem to remember you saying 45 once, but clearly I was mistaken master.

I kinda like the star wars thing:p

[leekohler]

Lee --

I am sorry for what happened to you. For No. 1, the people who hurt you may have claimed to be Christians, but their actions were counter to everything Christ taught. If it's any solace, if these people are remotely correct in their beliefs, they have a rude awakening waiting for them in their afterlife.

For your other points, I'll defend your right to believe them. But where you say "many," I would say "some." Where you say "often," I would say "sometimes." And I think I have empirical data to support my position. Maybe someday, on a different thread, we can debate it.

::)

mt

Perhaps I should have said "too many". There are certainly enough that they can adversely affect the lives of others. Unfortunately, it's the bad apples who cause all the problems. And there are unfortunately too many of them at the moment.

I understand what you're saying though. I was trying to illustrate why some people might have legitimate reasons to hate religion. I wasn't saying it's right, just that the reasons do exist.

My bad, I seem to remember you saying 45 once, but clearly I was mistaken master.

I kinda like the star wars thing:p

So many people mistake my 'tar for something from Star Wars, so I just decided to finally give in to the Force. :)

[mactastic]

College boys, eh?
Troll boy, eh?

[mysterytramp]

Everyone judges everyone. Get it?

Nope.

Joshua Judges Ruth

::)

mt

[AP_piano295]

Sorry to hear that.

There are still people, of all religions, who accept gay, straight, or bi. The main focus for most religions is not sexuality but spirituality and if someone wants to be a bigot and hate you, they are missing the main point of their said religion. Chances are they are more wrapped up in hate, and not understanding.

Just curious how did you determine the point of everyone's religion. A significant number of religious texts (which might be said to define the "point" of a religion) explain the importance of bigotry and shunning those who do not subscribe to the particularly text.

I'm not really sure what the "point" of religion is, sometimes it just seems like a technique for dealing with a world that is to big and scary to understand. Sometimes its a logical construct built by a few clever men to keep the mobs from ripping each other a part.

Whatever the "point" of religion is I think religious texts and history have shown us pretty clearly that the "point" is NOT to spread love peace and happiness.

ps. Then again if you think the point of a religion is to spread love and light more power to you and keep fighting the good fight.

[SmartIndianKid]

Whatever the "point" of religion is I think religious texts and history have shown us pretty clearly that the "point" is NOT to spread love peace and happiness.

ps. Then again if you think the point of a religion is to spread love and light more power to you and keep fighting the good fight.

It really depends on what religions you are looking at. Some are, historically, more violent than others. I don't think it's proper to lump all religions in the same category.

[NT1440]

So many people mistake my 'tar for something from Star Wars, so I just decided to finally give in to the Force. :)

Come on lee, its obvious thats you dressed up for an office party;)

I meant the whole padawan thing.

[leekohler]

Come on lee, its obvious thats you dressed up for an office party;)

I meant the whole padawan thing.

I know what you meant. :) I just think it's kind of a funny thing to do. It also seems to be very effective comic relief if a thread gets too crazy.

[mactastic]

Nope.

Joshua Judges Ruth

::)

mt
Great album, btw.

[63dot]

Huh? What are you talking about?

Lee, I think maybe he is a troll. I was wrong. I thought that maybe he/she had something to add, pro or con, but it looks like they are having fun at our expense. I guess they don't know that this website is moderated and they can get banned.

[LethalWolfe]

There are very legitimate reasons to hate religion, there are no legitimate reasons to hate a race or sexuality.
Why is it okay for you to hate who you want but not okay for other people to hate who they want?

There are no legitimate reasons to blindly hate entire groups of people regardless of how you categorize them, IMO. I'm sure plenty of racists have 'legitimate' reasons to hate blacks. I'm sure plenty of skinheads have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Jews. I'm sure plenty of Chinese have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Japanese. I'm sure plenty of Republicans have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Democrats. Does that 'legitimacy' make their hatred any less divisive? Does that 'legitimacy' justify the violence hatred breeds?


Lethal

[és:]

** sigh ** Go back through the thread and you'll find that I provided what I believed to be three recent egregious examples of anti-Christian statements. One was a poster who wished no religious people existed. I take offense to that.

AGAIN, I didn't say anything like that. Read what I'm writting.


Your previous statement:

So that'll be a no. You can't see the difference. Would you like me to spell it out for you?



I don't believe something because it's in a book. I believe something because it's in my heart.

You do believe in the Bible though, don't you? You believe that everything was created in 7 days? You believe that homosexuality is an abomination?

All I ask is that you respect it just as I respect your position.

Yet again, you're mixing people/religious up with a thing/religion. Different things.



I've read through this thread generalizations on Christians based possibly on personal experience but not based on empirical evidence

Are you seriously talking to me about empirical evidence. Is this seriously happening. A Christian talking about empirical evidence. The mind boggles.

And to be intellectually honest, the last person who should be spouting what Christians believe or do is an atheist.


I'm not an atheist. 'Intellectually honest' made me chuckle, though. Thanks.

[és:]

Why is it okay for you to hate who you want but not okay for other people to hate who they want?

Why are you unable to separate people from religion. I didn't say that it's OK to hate religeous people, I said religion.

There are no legitimate reasons to blindly hate entire groups of people regardless of how you categorize them, IMO.

Again, why can't you separate people from religion. Do you have a mental problem because if you do jut let me know and I'll back off.


I'm sure plenty of racists have 'legitimate' reasons to hate blacks. I'm sure plenty of skinheads have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Jews. I'm sure plenty of Chinese have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Japanese. I'm sure plenty of Republicans have 'legitimate' reasons to hate Democrats. Does that 'legitimacy' make their hatred any less divisive? Does that 'legitimacy' justify the violence hatred breeds?

You're not sure at all. There are no legitimate reasons for hating based on race or sexuality.

[glocke12]

Why are you unable to separate people from religion. I didn't say that it's OK to hate religeous people, I said religion.



Again, why can't you separate people from religion. Do you have a mental problem because if you do jut let me know and I'll back off.




You're not sure at all. There are no legitimate reasons for hating based on race or sexuality.


I hate okra and lima beans

[és:]

I hate okra and lima beans

You and me both.

[leekohler]

You and me both.

Thirded. Ick. :p

[arkitect]

I hate okra and lima beans

You and me both.

Thirded. Ick. :p

Heh! Enough with the Okra bashing.
had some lovely Okra in Sambal Ikan Bilis with coconut rice last night.
Delicious!
:D:D:D

You just have to get through the sliminess…

[takao]

another new thing learned thank to macrumors & wikipedia .. never heard of okra before

anything comparable in taste ?

[Rodimus Prime]

You're not sure at all. There are no legitimate reasons for hating based on race or sexuality.

But that argument is going to back to who says it *blank* reason is legitimate. Which I noticed you have never answered.

[és:]

But that argument is going to back to who says it *blank* reason is legitimate. Which I noticed you have never answered.

It's not a question, so it's fairly hard to answer. If you want to ask me a question, then go for it.

As for answering questions, how about you answer the rest of my posts and questions. Again, you can't.

[leekohler]

But that argument is going to back to who says it *blank* reason is legitimate. Which I noticed you have never answered.

So far, neither you, nor es have done so. That's the reason I posted some things I thought were legitimate. Perhaps both of you would like to present some of your own. :mad: Get on with it, or stop your bickering you two.

[és:]

nor es have done so.

I did so way back in the thread. He then called them weak and said that if they were weak he would have picked the points apart. He couldn't do so.

[Rt&Dzine]

Are you comparing:

1. Hating religion WITH hating homosexuality/a particular race of people?

or

2. Hating religious people WITH hating homosexuality/particular race of people?

[és:]

I'm saying that hating religion is incomparable with race and homosexuality. I'm saying that it's a legitimate stance to hate religion but not to hate a race or sexuality.

I hate neither.

[mgguy]

I'm saying that it's a legitimate stance to hate religion but not to hate a race or sexuality.



People should be free to hate whatever they want, just don't act on it.

[Rt&Dzine]

I'm saying that hating religion is incomparable with race and homosexuality.

Religion is a set of fundamental beliefs and/or the institution for them. So hating religion and hating a political ideology (i.e. communism/fascism) might be a valid comparison? Not sure.

[floyde]

And to be intellectually honest, the last person who should be spouting what Christians believe or do is an atheist.


Why not? :confused: It's not like you guys are a secret society or high-level scientologists. Your beliefs are all over the place, I can even click the link at the bottom of this page to "examine Jesus' claims for divinity". I can go to any store and buy the same version of The Bible that you have (I even have one myself).

Since there's no higher authority to validate the proper interpretation of The Bible (the only official source for Christian beliefs), you can no more tell me (or anyone) that you have a better understanding of what Christianity is about, than I can tell you about the mind of God.

You also forget that most atheists were actually Christians once, and are pretty well acquainted with Christianity's beliefs. In fact, a great number of them are atheists precisely because they became so well acquainted with Christianity (i.e. they actually read The Bible critically instead of relying on the skimmed, censored version that comes from the pulpits) that they could no longer reconcile it with their rational sides.

[Rodimus Prime]

So far, neither you, nor es have done so. That's the reason I posted some things I thought were legitimate. Perhaps both of you would like to present some of your own. :mad: Get on with it, or stop your bickering you two.

and I stated why. I was not going to state them. the reasons would royally piss you off leekohler and quite a few others. and I did not agree with them.

What I said was I can think of the arguments people would use and it hard to not call them legitimate arguements.

But in line with es.

1.) family values and homosexuality not fitting in.
2.) the idea that been protrade that all they want to do is have sex with each other and other of the same sex (while not true that is what seems to be broad caste and what people see)
3.) It not something you see in the natural world and a choice and one people do not agree with.
4. Now for religion across multiple religions it is cased down on. If you go for the bible there are multiple passages and a lot of the other rules can be traced back to a logical reason why they where that way.
5. Some of the same reason homosexual do not like religion because religions zealots attacking them. People who believe in religion get attack by homosexuals even though they do not behave that way. Those attacks wear down on people very very quickly.

I am a christian to non believer I put this is what I believe out there and show what there is to offer but do not force it down some one thought and leave it up to the person to choose what they want to believe.

Like I said I did not agree with them.I just know of quite a few. The reason I originally never posted them is it starts a debate I am not getting into nor want to.

Like I said I did not with them. Just I seen those arguments and with in realm of what legitimate they are there with in the bounds of 'es. Now let the flaming start because it will be the EXACT REASON why I originally did not want to post them but between leekohler, es and a few other pushing I had enough trying avoid it.

[Rodimus Prime]

Why not? :confused: It's not like you guys are a secret society or high-level scientologists. Your beliefs are all over the place, I can even click the link at the bottom of this page to "examine Jesus' claims for divinity". I can go to any store and buy the same version of The Bible that you have (I even have one myself).

Since there's no higher authority to validate the proper interpretation of The Bible (the only official source for Christian beliefs), you can no more tell me (or anyone) that you have a better understanding of what Christianity is about, than I can tell you about the mind of God.

You also forget that most atheists were actually Christians once, and are pretty well acquainted with Christianity's beliefs. In fact, a great number of them are atheists precisely because they became so well acquainted with Christianity (i.e. they actually read The Bible critically instead of relying on the skimmed, censored version that comes from the pulpits) that they could no longer reconcile it with their rational sides.

No it is true. an atheist does not understand what it like to be a christian. there are lots of aspects that can not be put in words. You just either get it or you don't. Not much of an in between.

And really my belief is you can not go from being a christian to an atheist. Like it or not a lot of people who went that way were not a true believer to begin with.

Now it is another story saying I know God exist and accept that fact but not wanting anything to do with him.

[floyde]

No it is true. an atheist does not understand what it like to be a christian. there are lots of aspects that can not be put in words. You just either get it or you don't. Not much of an in between.


Can you teach me that magic trick where you say that something is true and it becomes so? :rolleyes: Because usually I have to prove that something is true, otherwise no one believes me.

I'd also love to learn that trick which Christians use to completely understand atheists while remaining completely obscure to them. I hear it's quite convenient when trying to avoid criticism.:rolleyes:

Seriously though, Christian or not you are still a homo sapiens. I can aspire to understand you in the same measure in which I can understand myself. The fact that you believe in a higher power doesn't make you any more cryptical (to me or anyone).


And really my belief is you can not go from being a christian to an atheist. Like it or not a lot of people who went that way were not a true believer to begin with.


Like it or not I was a true believer. Wishing that something that conflicts with your world view isn't true doesn't make it so. I even used your exact same rhetoric and I knew perfectly well what "with my heart" meant. I still do, except that I now realize that my heart is a muscle, and anything that is felt actually comes from the brain. You don't know anything about me at all, and are thus not qualified to make such a statement (or make it about other atheists who you don't know either).

Also, you are not Christ, and thus you're not even qualified to define what a "true believer" is.


Now it is another story saying I know God exist and accept that fact but not wanting anything to do with him.

That's not the case at all. For starters, no one "knows" that God exists. So I didn't know it, I believed it. Then I started thinking for myself and I concluded that Yahweh bears all the hallmarks of human design and is a terrible moral example. A more abstract, unknown God is possible (as I can't prove otherwise), but since I can't know anything about it, it's not something I should go basing important aspects of my life on.


And again, the only source for Christian beliefs is The Bible (and it is what anyone should use to understand Christianity). I want proof that your interpretation and understanding of The Bible is better than mine.

[mactastic]

No it is true. an atheist does not understand what it like to be a christian. there are lots of aspects that can not be put in words. You just either get it or you don't. Not much of an in between.
Well then by that logic, a Christian cannot understand what it is like to be an Atheist, and therefor would have no authority to make any claims as to what an Atheist thinks.

And really my belief is you can not go from being a christian to an atheist. Like it or not a lot of people who went that way were not a true believer to begin with.
Sorry pal. I believed when I was young. Now I don't. You're wrong.

[és:]

Religion is a set of fundamental beliefs and/or the institution for them. So hating religion and hating a political ideology (i.e. communism/fascism) might be a valid comparison? Not sure.

Yeah, you can certainly make a case for hating a political ideology. Things that are based upon facts and not baseless hatred.

[EricNau]

And really my belief is you can not go from being a christian to an atheist. Like it or not a lot of people who went that way were not a true believer to begin with.
Can one not genuinely believe is Santa Clause as a child, only to outgrow that belief?

[NT1440]

No it is true. an atheist does not understand what it like to be a christian. there are lots of aspects that can not be put in words. You just either get it or you don't. Not much of an in between.


Well I WAS a christian. Then around 14-15 things just started to fall apart with that. Religion made no sense to me thinking from a logical standpoint.

But let me guess "You werent a real christian if you turned your back on god" right?

[63dot]

Well I WAS a christian. Then around 14-15 things just started to fall apart with that. Religion made no sense to me thinking from a logical standpoint.

But let me guess "You werent a real christian if you turned your back on god" right?

Being a Christian, and among other things a liberal/progressive, I am not a fan of the right wing who has hijacked the religion. But that being said, the people I have personally met who say they were "once" Christians admit that they really never believed.

Logically speaking, I believe it's possible to be a Christian and then suddenly, let's say, become an atheist. I can't see why this doesn't happen all the time.

It's just that I never met someone who was a true believer in any religion and then suddenly became an atheist. The closest thing I have seen, which still struck me as interesting, was my roomate's friend in school who was a hardcore Jehovah Witness who became an atheist after taking a religion class in junior college. It's the only case of a practicing theist who eventually became an atheist, and a content one at that.

Part of what I think fueled his transition was his eventual belief, whether well founded or not, that his religion was a money making business preying on weak minds masquerading to be spiritual or religious. He didn't seem bitter and think that "all" religions were money making businesses.

[EricNau]

He didn't seem bitter and think that "all" religions were money making businesses.
Aren't they? Do they not collect money? Are they not making a profit?

[glocke12]

another new thing learned thank to macrumors & wikipedia .. never heard of okra before

anything comparable in taste ?

there is nothing comparable to okra in terms of taste.......

[63dot]

Aren't they? Do they not collect money? Are they not making a profit?

Somewhere in the pantheon of religious or spiritual groups, there is a line where the organization goes from religion/self-help to full-on business.

I don't mind if the business is Microsoft and they sell Windows, Office, and X-Box. At least we know the intentions at hand.

When it's a so-called religion calling itself such, but is really no different than Microsoft, then I see a point where that religion becomes a business under cover. This alarms me. Others may be OK with it. To each his own.

[Anuba]

But when someone, whether a thug or someone that just snaps, uses a gun to injury or kill someone this provides the other side ammunition to say; See if guns were illegal this would have never happened. Again another pipe dream.
Well, in order for it to be a pipe dream it would have to exist only in theory. But there are plenty of countries where guns are illegal and where things like that indeed never happen.

It's all about what you're after, really. If the common goal is to save more lives than you lose, then the answer can only be a total ban on handguns (law enforcement officers excepted). There is no record of liberal gun laws ever keeping the number of premature/unnatural deaths down. For every life saved by, say, brandishing a gun to scare off a burglar or whatever, there's a fatal accident somewhere and/or and some psycho who snaps and goes on a killing spree. But if you consider a certain amount of human spillage a reasonable trade-off in order to preserve liberal gun laws, then more elbow power to ya. But it has to be either or. A combination of liberal gun laws AND fewer premature deaths per capita than in a country with restrictive gun laws, now that's a bona fide pipe dream.

I live in Sweden where gun laws are very restrictive, and in our neighboring country of Finland they're very liberal. I think the Finns have had two major school massacres only in the last year or so. In Sweden there's never been anything of the sort, ever. Does that mean there are no psycho students in Sweden? No, but they just don't manage to do any fatal damage by yelling and flailing their arms around. It's all about what's at your disposal when you snap. The only time some sort of mass shooting has occured in Sweden was in the early 90's when some army liutenant snapped and went out and killed 7 random people, Charles Whitman-style. The only difference between him and a thousand other Swedish psychos who would do the same thing in a heartbeat, is that he was one of the chosen few who had easy access to a gun through his profession.

[mysterytramp]

You do believe in the Bible though, don't you? You believe that everything was created in 7 days? You believe that homosexuality is an abomination?

Please, cite the posting where I said I believed either of these things.

mt

[apsterling]

there is nothing comparable to okra in terms of taste.......

Precisely, it tastes that good!

[mysterytramp]

Why not?

You're right ... we are fairly open in what we believe. But I'll take Message 184 as pretty good evidence that es has no real idea about what I believe. I am not that unusual a Christian, so I'll venture that if he has my belief set screwed up, I'm not going to trust his generalizations about any Christian.

mt

[mysterytramp]

Aren't they? Do they not collect money? Are they not making a profit?

Maybe it's easy to look at the megachurches like Willow Creek or the Roman Catholics and think all churches are money-making enterprises. But believe me, most aren't. My own church has ended almost every year in the red for the past several years.

mt

[mysterytramp]

The very fact of your saying this is a way of demanding undue respect. Who cares if you think some deity is speaking to you? A lack of respect for a secondhand morality is not the same as enmity or hatred.

In no way am I asking for respect because of my beliefs -- we should all be respected regardless of our belief systems. I am asking for respect because a) everyone on this board should be shown a basic level of respect and b) I have shown respect to others. We can still disagree -- that's where the fun is! -- but we can do it agreeably.

mt

[NT1440]

Being a Christian, and among other things a liberal/progressive, I am not a fan of the right wing who has hijacked the religion. But that being said, the people I have personally met who say they were "once" Christians admit that they really never believed.

Logically speaking, I believe it's possible to be a Christian and then suddenly, let's say, become an atheist. I can't see why this doesn't happen all the time.

It's just that I never met someone who was a true believer in any religion and then suddenly became an atheist. The closest thing I have seen, which still struck me as interesting, was my roomate's friend in school who was a hardcore Jehovah Witness who became an atheist after taking a religion class in junior college. It's the only case of a practicing theist who eventually became an atheist, and a content one at that.

Part of what I think fueled his transition was his eventual belief, whether well founded or not, that his religion was a money making business preying on weak minds masquerading to be spiritual or religious. He didn't seem bitter and think that "all" religions were money making businesses.

Well as another poster said, I was a true believer, the whole shebang, but I came to my senses and through logical thinking I came eventually to realize that I did not beleive.

Kinda "outgrew" it if you will.

[63dot]

Well as another poster said, I was a true believer, the whole shebang, but I came to my senses and through logical thinking I came eventually to realize that I did not beleive.

Kinda "outgrew" it if you will.

What I usually have seen, save the one example I mentioned in an earlier post, is that one may change religions, or denominations within a religion. Does it feel strange to have no religion or belief, if that's the case? I used to be an atheist then at a certain point I wasn't. After some years, I just could not imagine going back. We are all born atheists without a belief in a higher power.

Sometimes I get really angry at what is done in the name of religion to the point it seems like human beings and religion are not a good match, but then I realize that it's the people fighting over land, resources, money, revenge, or just self defense. It does not deep down appear to do with what or what they do not believe. Certainly religion/spirituality does not change the behavior of many for the good, it just seems to be a very basic human trait to believe in some sort of higher power. I don't know from my point of view, but it appears it may be a need up there with any basic human need vs. a want such as "the latest mac" or something.

I have seen individuals in search of a faith, and change it every time I run into them, almost in the most fickle way, but I think their need to find a higher power is still there.

[skunk]

In no way am I asking for respect because of my beliefs -- we should all be respected regardless of our belief systems.I try to maintain a certain respect for the person I am arguing with, but I do not necessarily respect their position.

[thebassoonist]

I'm still confused. Do you mean "facts" or "statistics"? "Facts" are what they are and don't involve opinion.

AGH!!!!! Statistics don't involve opinion! (Unless, of course, we are measuring opinion.) And statistics are facts!! Here, straight from my Apple Dictionary:

Statistic:
A fact or piece of data from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.

Statistics:
The practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

Yes, facts can be used to justify one's opinion, but that doesn't make them any less true or valuable.

[és:]

Please, cite the posting where I said I believed either of these things.

mt

This is a question mark '?', I suggest you look it up.

As you have ignored the rest of my post, I'll assume you've just conceded the points.

[skunk]

AGH!!!!! Statistics don't involve opinion! (Unless, of course, we are measuring opinion.) And statistics are facts!! "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Statistics on their own mean nothing: they depend on classifications, definitions, sampling methods, parameters and accurate reporting. Statistics most certainly are not facts.

[thebassoonist]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Statistics on their own mean nothing: they depend on classifications, definitions, sampling methods, parameters and accurate reporting. Statistics most certainly are not facts.

I'm thoroughly confused. Please give me a "fact."

[skunk]

I'm thoroughly confused. Please give me a "fact."The average distance between the moon and the earth, centre to centre, is 384,403 km.

[leekohler]

In no way am I asking for respect because of my beliefs -- we should all be respected regardless of our belief systems. I am asking for respect because a) everyone on this board should be shown a basic level of respect and b) I have shown respect to others. We can still disagree -- that's where the fun is! -- but we can do it agreeably.

mt

Every human being is deserving of a certain level of respect. Beliefs are not. Beliefs need to earn respect.

[thebassoonist]

The average distance between the moon and the earth, centre to centre, is 384,403 km.

AVERAGE.

[NT1440]

AVERAGE.

And thats a fact.....isnt that what you asked for?:confused:

[thebassoonist]

And thats a fact.....isnt that what you asked for?:confused:

The average is a statistic. Apparently statistics aren't facts. ???

[xUKHCx]

The average is a statistic. Apparently statistics aren't facts. ???

I'll repoint you to the original post

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Statistics on their own mean nothing: they depend on classifications, definitions, sampling methods, parameters and accurate reporting. Statistics most certainly are not facts.

[Lord Blackadder]

Yes, let's not mire the thread in pedantry. Statistics prove everything and nothing at the same time. They only mean anything within defined parameters, and parameters are rarely, if ever, objective.

[63dot]

The average is a statistic. Apparently statistics aren't facts. ???

I just fell of the toilet. ;)

[thebassoonist]

I'll repoint you to the original post

I know what the original post was, but thanks anyway. And I apologize for being a pedantess. Many people on this forum like to debate using the scientific method as a way of knowing. Statistics are, perhaps only in my opinion, a way to use the scientific method to find things out. Many statistics are commonly used as facts, like 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce. That is a statistic and a fact. I think the parameters of that statistic are objective -- marriages in the United States. I suppose what I'm getting at is that if we cannot use statistics as facts (and of course we should see how data was collected and if it is reliable), then we cannot have meaningful debates about social phenomena.

There I go being pedantic again...

[skunk]

We can only have meaningful debates using statistics if all parties agree on the meaning of and relationship between the statistics.

[thebassoonist]

We can only have meaningful debates using statistics if all parties agree on the meaning of and relationship between the statistics.

OK.

[skunk]

If some believe there is a causation between variables but others believe there is only a correlation, then we cannot debate?We can certainly have the debate, but any conclusion may be hard to find. Clearly some statistics are more factual than others.

[thebassoonist]

We can certainly have the debate, but any conclusion may be hard to find.

Good and true (conclusions are almost always hard to find). :)