quote:
Talonus had this to say about John Romero:
The general consensus in the thread, even from the non-Christians, seems to be that the joke went too far and stepped over the line into being distasteful and hurtful. Even Pvednes apologized for the comment. (Thank for Pvednes for that.) If the one who made the joke thinks it was hurtful, how is Parce a hypersensitive prick? You seem to be the insensitive prick here.
Pvednes' apology was misplaced, and simply encourages hypersensitive pricks who don't deserve an apology, because anyone with even a single functioning brain cell could see that Pvednes' comment was simply a joke based around the idiot jumping into the lion pit and not a serious blanket statement regarding a preferred fate for Christians.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Two sentence description of my take on this thread: Religions/beliefs are valid to a wide range of extents to each individual from minor social/ethical guidelines to extreme devotion, and criticism of one as invalid invites examination of the validity of one's own/other religion/beliefs, which may or may not be provable on empirical/logical/philosophical grounds.
Pved's comment was perhaps intended to be humorous, but was inappropriate as it touches on the sensitive subject of extreme religious devotion as a potentially bad thing, which it can be in the case of the guy who leapt to the lions, but not in the case in which it is a very positive force in people's lives.
Concise enough?
quote:
Mr. Parcelan impressed everyone with:
The time when a person's character was judged by whether or not they agreed with you has long since passed, bud.It was something that pushed the entire "joke" (though sometimes I questioned whether it was a joke or not) too far and caused a lot of us who didn't appreciate being insulted based on what believed to speak up.
So I'll say what I want about it. You're not going to tell me what to do.
Wah.
The joke was timely, funny in context, and had nothing whatever to do with bashing Christianity or promoting hatred and intolerance. I suppose next you'll be hosting a DVD-burning party for all those blasphemous Monty Python skits, eh?
"You're no longer fashionable, so I don't have to care what you say," is hardly an intelligent defense of one's boorish behavior.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Sure, it may not feel great to be surrrounded by people that don't agree with you. That does make things difficult, I know. But come on, now. We all know this thread isn't going to change anything for the bettter, and when Yuri flips the fuck out like that it's actually working on making the aftermath of this thread WORSE than what it might have been.
/shrug
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Tron:
See, Christianity is really old. The value of a religion is directly related to how old it is. That's why people throughout history have hated on the jews so much, they're #1. Kinda like how America is treated today.
America's like the youngest Western nation though 
quote:
Maradon!'s fortune cookie read:
Then you aren't looking at the right people.
Or you're looking to the absolute fringe of the radical fringe, I spend a lot of my time on a European college campus and even there I see very few people who actually believe that anything except for what they see as vital common goods (Infrastructure, education, water production, maybe a few other things) should be run by the actual government, a far cry from nationalizing all means of production and abolishing the market.
If early Christianity is a product of Roman culture then why is neo-wiccia not a product of modern culture? It does take a lot of it's material from an older, dormant religion but Christianity assimilated a lot of practices from other belief systems as well. Anything that humans that are part of western culture create is in a way a product of western culture and while the original inception of nature-worshiping religions is not their renewed popularity certainly is. Perhaps the cultural stimuli you are looking for can be found in the fact that our deeper and deeper understanding of the world around us has put us at odds with what some people see as a natural way of life and this disparity could spawn a renewed interest in religions that focus on humans as part of nature instead of humans as objects of divine judgment. (Not that I follow those beliefs in any way but there is an argument to be made for them being a product of our culture)
If you take a neutral perspective and remove social coercion from the equation a person observing the universe is actually more likely to adopt something akin to one of the early belief systems who focus on explaining how moon goddesses bless the harvest of people who rotate their crops but are offended by the raping of the land through monocultures. Current religions are much less concerned with how the universe works and much more concerned with standards of morality and human behavior, as such a person seeking confirmation that his moral stances are right is much more likely to find truth in Judaism, Christianity or Islam than one trying to figure out the universe on his own is, in modern times we have science for purposes of understanding our surroundings and it does tend to fulfill that purpose better than worship. Mod fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 01:58 PM.
quote:
I grew tired of the anti-Christian stuff a long time ago, which is why I never post in a religion thread. There seems to be no point (unless I become a masochist) to do so. I avoid the controversy deliberately, because it hurts sometimes and because I don't want to ever be in the position of being perceived as bashing anyone for being an agnostic, an atheist, a wiccan, or anything else.And to say "We like the nice Christians like Gydyon" actually doesn't do anything for me. I appreciate the effort, but it's somewhat patronizing. I've been an ardent follower of Christ for nearly seventeen years, and whether or not you think of me as "one of the reasonable ones" you're still pissing down my leg and telling me it's raining.
I like most of you and I know it's largely unintentional for most. I don't really care if you stop (it's not my board and you are free to do whatever you choose), but know it does have an effect.
Gydyon said it best.
quote:
So quoth Jens:
America's like the youngest Western nation though
I think that's what he was getting at.
quote:
Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
"You're no longer fashionable, so I don't have to care what you say," is hardly an intelligent defense of one's boorish behavior.
How about this, then: I don't have to care what you say because you always say the same thing. "I don't like what you say, so shut up."
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
Pvednes' apology was misplaced, and simply encourages hypersensitive pricks who don't deserve an apology, because anyone with even a single functioning brain cell could see that Pvednes' comment was simply a joke based around the idiot jumping into the lion pit and not a serious blanket statement regarding a preferred fate for Christians.
I appreciated Pvedne's apology, so I don't think it was misplaced. Of course, you're telling me I'm wrong so I must be wrong, right? Besides, since when are you the source on what is and isn't offensive now? We understand that it was a joke. Just because something is a joke doesn't mean its perfectly alright to say. There are still a line that makes something alright and not alright. It seems several posters felt the joke crossed that line, including the person who made the joke.
Just some news for you BS, not everyone thinks like you. Not all jokes are tasteful. Some people are offended by said jokes, even if you're not. You don't need to insult people who don't think like you. That makes you just as much of a dumbass as lion guy.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Jens wrote:
America's like the youngest Western nation though
I know. Crazy, eh? Just another reason for all those old fogey countries back east to hate us young whippersnapper upstarts.
quote:
A sleep deprived JooJooFlop stammered:
I know. Crazy, eh? Just another reason for all those old fogey countries back east to hate us young whippersnapper upstarts.
"Crazy kids! Get off my hemisphere!"
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Azrael Heavenblade had this to say about Captain Planet:
I suppose it's an odd coincidence that this thread erupts when I'm studying sociology/anthropology/psychology of religion? So many potential sources for the origins of religion it's not even funny.Two sentence description of my take on this thread: Religions/beliefs are valid to a wide range of extents to each individual from minor social/ethical guidelines to extreme devotion, and criticism of one as invalid invites examination of the validity of one's own/other religion/beliefs, which may or may not be provable on empirical/logical/philosophical grounds.
Pved's comment was perhaps intended to be humorous, but was inappropriate as it touches on the sensitive subject of extreme religious devotion as a potentially bad thing, which it can be in the case of the guy who leapt to the lions, but not in the case in which it is a very positive force in people's lives.
Concise enough?
Uh, no.
First, your use of the term "valid" is so imprecise as to invalidate your entire statement. "Valid" is a really bade psychobabble term to use in this context, because it's easy to confuse with "empirically correct" rather than the psyochpop meaning "it's okay to feel that way."
Second, the fundamental assumption you seem to have that any belief is somehow okay, and questioning anyone else's beliefs is somehow evidence of mental dysfunction is, again, pure pop psychobabble. In fact, I think that sentence can only be uttered with a straight face while dressed in paisley and seated in the lotus position while listening to Steppenwolf and toking on a hookah.
Speaking purely from a psychology standpoint, religion is "valid" only in the sense that it serves as an important emotional crutch for when dealing with completely unstructured situations. In short, it provides an external source of meaning and motivation for those in need of them.
Sociologically, the religion exists for myriad more reasons, of which behavioral norming is probably primary.
Last I checked, there was no fundamental human right not to be offended, or that requires everyone else to take every subject as seriously as the touchiest human on the planet. The joke was hardly a human rights violation, and says nothing about the psyche of the person telling it beyond that he's not only up on recent events as well as history, but able to connect the two in a humorous fashion. A sense of humor is not a psychological deviation.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mod had this to say about Tron:
If early Christianity is a product of Roman culture then why is neo-wiccia not a product of modern culture?
Neo-Wicca is a product of me-too social pressure. Early christianity was not.
quote:
It does take a lot of it's material from an older, dormant religion
No, it takes all of it's material from a long dead religion. It's important to note that these people do not practice a unique religion, they only mimic one that was obliterated long ago.
quote:
but Christianity assimilated a lot of practices from other belief systems as well. Anything that humans that are part of western culture create is in a way a poduct of western cultur and while the original inception of nature-worshipping religions is not their renewed popularity certainly is. Perhaps the cultural stimulii you are looking for can be found in the fact that our deeper and deeper understanding of the world around us has put us at odds with what some people see as a natural way of life and this disparity could spawn a renewed interest in religions that focus on humans as part of nature instead of humans as objects of divine judgement. (Not that I follow those beliefs in any way but there is an argument to be made for them being a product of our culture)
I call bullshit. I could see such a cultural stimulus creating a new religion, but I find it extremely hard to believe that a cultural stimulus is going to suddenly lead people to believe in the precise doctrines of a long dead faith just...by coincidence. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 02:10 PM.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan spewed forth this undeniable truth:
How about this, then: I don't have to care what you say because you always say the same thing. "I don't like what you say, so shut up."
Ah, yes. Yet another one who can't see past, "You're being stupid. . ." to, ". . .because X, Y, and Z."
Feel free to keep acting like a spoiled two-year-old, but it'll only bring more (well deserved) taunting.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
Ah, yes. Yet another one who can't see past, "You're being stupid. . ." to, ". . .because X, Y, and Z."Feel free to keep acting like a spoiled two-year-old, but it'll only bring more (well deserved) taunting.
Who's acting like a two-year-old? Me or the man that says "You're wrong because I say you're wrong"?
Whatever you do, Bloodsage, I know I'm right in this matter. The time has long passed where you can speak and have the entire argument change to suit you.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
Uh, no.First, your use of the term "valid" is so imprecise as to invalidate your entire statement. "Valid" is a really bade psychobabble term to use in this context, because it's easy to confuse with "empirically correct" rather than the psyochpop meaning "it's okay to feel that way."
Second, the fundamental assumption you seem to have that any belief is somehow okay, and questioning anyone else's beliefs is somehow evidence of mental dysfunction is, again, pure pop psychobabble. In fact, I think that sentence can only be uttered with a straight face while dressed in paisley and seated in the lotus position while listening to Steppenwolf and toking on a hookah.
Speaking purely from a psychology standpoint, religion is "valid" only in the sense that it serves as an important emotional crutch for when dealing with completely unstructured situations. In short, it provides an external source of meaning and motivation for those in need of them.
Sociologically, the religion exists for myriad more reasons, of which behavioral norming is probably primary.
Last I checked, there was no fundamental human right not to be offended, or that requires everyone else to take every subject as seriously as the touchiest human on the planet. The joke was hardly a human rights violation, and says nothing about the psyche of the person telling it beyond that he's not only up on recent events as well as history, but able to connect the two in a humorous fashion. A sense of humor is not a psychological deviation.
Sorry, that wasn't well thought out. What I was trying to say here is that one of the major arguments in this thread is validity of religions as in, "This religion is a bunch of hoo-ha" or "Chrisianity is more valid than Wicca". It is indeed hard to determine what validity is in the case of religion. What I meant by empirical evidence was measureable scientific evidence vs dogma and personal belief. "It's ok to feel that way" may be pyschobabble, but I wasn't trying to apply that to all beliefs.
We're talking about religions and spiritual beliefs here. Certain beliefs can be disproven with solid evidence or logic, ie someone believing that gravity doesn't exist can be proved wrong with measureable scientific evidence. Someone who believes in Allah cannot be determinedly proven wrong in the same fashion. Religions are very hard to prove or to disprove.
Indeed, there is no inalienable right not to be offended, as has been stated several times in this thread. What some people are asking is how is Christianity wrong to criticize/joke about vs it's ok to attack other religions/belief systems?
Going on with this theme, the whole, "Is Parce right in being offended and it's not right to poke fun at people's beliefs" or "Are the people who say belief is subjective and any belief can be poked at right" was the core of this thread.
Was trying to summarize the thread but I obviously failed miserably.
quote:
Maradon! stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
[/qb]I call bullshit. I could see such a cultural stimulus creating a new religion, but I find it extremely hard to believe that a cultural stimulus is going to suddenly lead people to believe in the precise doctrines of a long dead faith just...by coincidence.
Not by coincidence, forming a new religion today is rather impossible without relying on either the authority of historical religious documents or Scientology-like methods of brainwashing and coercion. Someone trying to start a religion today would be faced with a the massive entry barrier of people being much less superstitious today than they were 400 years ago, back then telling someone that you have seen a cobold sneaking around your house at night would have provoked an intensive search of the forest around your farm, even if the dominant religion did not teach belief in cobolds, doing the same today would just net you some weird looks.
Lacking that basic willingness of people to believe things outside of our sphere of understanding without massive cultural indoctrination new belief systems have to appeal to historical authority for validation, we tend to idolize people of the past and gloss over their flaws, thus accepting beliefs we attribute to them is much easier than accepting completely new ones.
"Me-too"-social pressure is a much bigger factor in the continued popularity of Christianity than it is in wiccianism exactly because the former is much more accepted, very few people want to be the odd man out by worshiping the mystical ocelot spirit. Mod fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 02:29 PM.
quote:
Talonus spewed forth this undeniable truth:
I appreciated Pvedne's apology, so I don't think it was misplaced. Of course, you're telling me I'm wrong so I must be wrong, right? Besides, since when are you the source on what is and isn't offensive now? We understand that it was a joke. Just because something is a joke doesn't mean its perfectly alright to say. There are still a line that makes something alright and not alright. It seems several posters felt the joke crossed that line, including the person who made the joke.Just some news for you BS, not everyone thinks like you. Not all jokes are tasteful. Some people are offended by said jokes, even if you're not. You don't need to insult people who don't think like you. That makes you just as much of a dumbass as lion guy.
I flat-out guarantee he didn't apologize because he thought the joke crossed a line; he did it simply because it generated a fuss. We'll have to ask Pvednes.
Don't you think it fairly ironic that you're chastising me for dictating taste, while dictating taste? Seems to me that the tolerant thing to do--if tolerance is really what you're after--would have been to let it slide, because it has absolutely no effect on anyone, and is patently not hate-mongering from "the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians." There's a big difference between, "That joke offended me," and "Anyone who tells jokes I find offensive is a blind bigot spreading hatred against my most closely held beliefs."
The icing is, of course, your last line. It's apparently okay for some people to fly off the handle because others have differing beliefs and a sense of humor, but not to decry the behavior? Exactly what do you think is the distinction between the behavior you're defending and that for which you're attempting to call me on the carpet?
Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 01-26-2005 at 02:41 PM.
{edit: tpyo}
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Mr. Parcelan probably says this to all the girls:
Who's acting like a two-year-old? Me or the man that says "You're wrong because I say you're wrong"?Whatever you do, Bloodsage, I know I'm right in this matter. The time has long passed where you can speak and have the entire argument change to suit you.
Did you even read what I posted? Point to the part where I said anything resembling, "Just because I say so."
The fact that you've not addressed a single point I've made other than the observation that you're being a prick, combined with the fact that your assessment of Pvednes as someone who "blindly hate[s] Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians" despite that odd notion being belied both by the context and his own statement, show rather conclusively that you're being not only hypersensitive, but stupid and unreasonable.
If all you've got is, "Nah-nah-nah-nah I don't have to listen to you," it seems to me you'd be better off staying quiet and saving yourself further public shame.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Bloodsage said this:
If all you've got is, "Nah-nah-nah-nah I don't have to listen to you," it seems to me you'd be better off staying quiet and saving yourself further public shame.
Public shame? Being insulted by a guy who would insult a 2 year-old for crying when their mother died hardly equates to being publicly shamed.
And no, I don't have to listen to you because your only goal in this thread is to stir up trouble.
quote:
Mod had this to say about Pirotess:
Not by coincidence, forming a new religion today is rather impossible without relying on either the authority of historical religious documents or Scientology-like methods of brainwashing and coercion.
Spontaniously creating a traditionally valid religion in this day and age does indeed seem pretty impossible. It would take a major, popularly recognized event beyond the explanation of science to create one, which is unlikely. That doesn't change the fact that copying a long dead faith verbatim does not make you a follower of that faith.
quote:
"Me-too"-social pressure is a much bigger factor in the continued popularity of Christianity than it is in wiccianism exactly because the former is much more accepted, very few people want to be the odd man out by worshiping the mystical ocelot spirit.
That's a different matter entirely.
quote:
Verily, Mr. Parcelan doth proclaim:
Public shame? Being insulted by a guy who would insult a 2 year-old for crying when their mother died hardly equates to being publicly shamed.And no, I don't have to listen to you because your only goal in this thread is to stir up trouble.
So it's now your contention that Pvednes' rather timely joke regarding an idiot who jumped into a lion pit is the same as if a child's mother had died? That makes even less sense than your initial whining rant about how anyone who makes a joke you don't like must be out to oppress the poor, benighted Christians who never get a fair shake in this world.
And how did you determine that my only goal is stirring up trouble? Am I the one who waited three days to whine about a short-lived post. . .in an entirely new thread? Nope, but you did. Am I somehow the one who opted to make sweeping generalizations rather than address a single person head-on about a single issue? Nope, but there you go again. Did I suddenly have an angst attack and damn the rest of the world for not conforming to my belief system? Not I, but--hey!--what's that over there in the first post?
When are you going to start making sense?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Tarquinn was all like:
God, please send some lions to eat this thread!
But I think we've identified the latest and greatest board trend! We should all go back to last week and find posts that vaguely offend us. . .then start new threads ranting about the iniquity of those perfidious bastards who keep trying to oppress us.
You bastard. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Bloodsage:
I flat-out guarantee he didn't apologize because he thought the joke crossed a line; he did it simply because it generated a fuss. We'll have to ask Pvednes.Don't you think it fairly ironic that you're chastising me for dictating taste, while dictating taste? Seems to me that the tolerant thing to do--if tolerance is really what you're after--would have been to let it slide, because it has absolutely no affect on anyone, and is patently not hate-mongering from "the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians." There's a big difference between, "That joke offended me," and "Anyone who tells jokes I find offensive is a blind bigot spreading hatred against my most closely held beliefs."
The icing is, of course, your last line. It's apparently okay for some people to fly off the handle because others have differing beliefs and a sense of humor, but not to decry the behavior? Exactly what do you think is the distinction between the behavior you're defending and that for which you're attempting to call me on the carpet?
Ok, sure. If Pvednes wants to tell us why he made the aology, its his call.
I must have mispoken, as you have misunderstood me. You're dictacting taste. Those that dictate a different taste than you are without a "single functioning brain cell" according to you. You were the first one in this thread, and the only one it seems, to make a broad insult against people who disagree with them. I've simply said "it seems several posters felt the joke crossed that line, including the person who made the joke." I did not dictate taste. Rather, I summed up commentary in the thread. There is a difference.
As far as tolerance goes, all the intolerant things I've done is give Pvednes a simple fuck you (which I now rescind now that he's apologized) and insult you. I let it slide for the most part. I'm not perfect, so I can't let everything slide though.
Also, where are you pulling those quotes from? Trying to put words in my mouth? I didn't put it that way. Nobody put it that way, except for you.
Again, I must have mispoken in my last line. I have no problem with people who have different beliefs than me. Go ahead I say. I expect them to defend themselves if I were to say something insulting to them and would gladly apologize in that case. What I'm do is calling you on being an elitist asshole that talks down to everyone who disagrees with him and insulted Parcelan and other posters for that! 
Oh no, I've gone and used an insult again! Oh well, least I can't be called on that fallacy!
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
But I think we've identified the latest and greatest board trend! We should all go back to last week and find posts that vaguely offend us. . .then start new threads ranting about the iniquity of those perfidious bastards who keep trying to oppress us.You bastard.
Not trying to jump on the bandwagon here or anything...but you've made quite a few threads over the years for the sole purpose of calling people out into a flamefest. So making fun of Parce for doing the same seems...odd to me.
quote:
Reynar thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Not trying to jump on the bandwagon here or anything...but you've made quite a few threads over the years for the sole purpose of calling people out into a flamefest. So making fun of Parce for doing the same seems...odd to me.
The only ones I recall are those ridiculing the cowards who chose to lock their threads rather than face disagreement. And then immediately, not out of the blue days later.
Did you have a different example in mind?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
In that context, Sage's statements were not out of bounds. Taken OUT of context, the comment Pved made is crude. In context, in a thread with a guy who jumped down into a lion's den to (of all things) try and convert the lions, well. I've seen people make worse attempts at dry wit.
Fact is that if Pved felt his comments were misinterpreted, and wanted to apologize, that's fine. I think what Sage was getting at was that someone deliberately took them out of context to make an argument.
I think the argument is valid (and ironic, as I'll explain in a moment), but that was a poor supporting citation to use. There have certainly been obnoxious cracks about Christians before.
I stand by my earlier statement, however. Certain parties have turned the other cheek more than can reasonably be expected of them. After a certain point, it goes back being clever and something easily ignored, and becomes instead abusive. I find it ironic that we are once again at a crossroads where one party says "Hey c'mon not cool" and others are telling them to have a thicker skin. I've heard that particular argument here at EC a number of times. It's quasi-valid. All I can say is that I guess a threshold point on religious belief bashing has been reached.
But attacking Sage for calling someone on using a bad supporting clause to their overall argument is stupid. It was an out of context misuse. If I'd used something like that in a debate from my Logic class, I would've gotten marked off, ESPECIALLY given that there are numerous other occasions that could've been drawn from. It hurts your argument if your ringer example is contextually invalid.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Reynar had this to say about Cuba:
Not trying to jump on the bandwagon here or anything...but you've made quite a few threads over the years for the sole purpose of calling people out into a flamefest. So making fun of Parce for doing the same seems...odd to me.
Careful, Rey. If you want to start pointing the fingers, a very different Parce of a different age once told Lyinar and myself to not be so thin-skinned about people making comments at our expense. If you want to use the credibility attack argument, be aware that just about all of the principals in this thread can be counter-attacked (with the possible exception of Zephyer) with the same argument.
I didn't bring it up earlier solely because I see where Parce is trying to go with the thread and he HAS changed in a lot of ways and I can back his overall point, if not his supporting example.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Talonus had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Ok, sure. If Pvednes wants to tell us why he made the aology, its his call.I must have mispoken, as you have misunderstood me. You're dictacting taste. Those that dictate a different taste than you are without a "single functioning brain cell" according to you. If you'll read, the brain cell thing had nothing to do with taste; it had to do with the ability to discern whether the joke was a joke or a hate-mongering ploy by someone with an abiding hatred of Christians. I never said anyone had to like the joke, only that it would take an idiot not to recognize it as a propos to the sitiuation and not a mindless attacke on Christians. You were the first one in this thread, and the only one it seems, to make a broad insult against people who disagree with them. YGBSM. What thread are you reading. Did you read, oh, I don't know. . .the original post, maybe? I've simply said "it seems several posters felt the joke crossed that line, including the person who made the joke." I did not dictate taste. Rather, I summed up commentary in the thread. There is a difference.
As far as tolerance goes, all the intolerant things I've done is give Pvednes a simple fuck you (which I now rescind now that he's apologized) and insult you. I let it slide for the most part. I'm not perfect, so I can't let everything slide though.
Also, where are you pulling those quotes from? Okay, now you've made it clear you've not even read the damned thread. The quotes are from the initial post. You know--the one I quoted and directed my comments toward? Trying to put words in my mouth? I didn't put it that way. Nobody put it that way, except for you. If you want to argue with me, it's crucial that you be able to read. You can take it for granted that I'm not simply making things up. There's even this handy little miniature thread down there below the reply container that you can reference, if you need to.
Again, I must have mispoken in my last line. I have no problem with people who have different beliefs than me. Go ahead I say. I expect them to defend themselves if I were to say something insulting to them and would gladly apologize in that case. What I'm do is calling you on being an elitist asshole that talks down to everyone who disagrees with him and insulted Parcelan and other posters for that!
So your contention remains that Parcelan is being not only reasonable, but tolerant when he takes an obvious joke about a lunatic jumping into a lion den to convert the lions and responds, "This is perhaps one of the most singularly disgusting things I've ever heard espoused from even the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians." Yet I'm somehow elitest when I say he's being a prick for flying off the handle at something that was obviously not meant to be offensive and wildly generalizing about the intelligence and motives of anyone who would dare make a Christian joke? Where do you get this stuff?
Oh no, I've gone and used an insult again! Oh well, least I can't be called on that fallacy!
YGBFSM. Can you even read?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Lashanna had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Perfidious is such a splendid word. You've no idea how fond I am of it. Yet you so rarely have an opportunity to use it.
I like "iniquity," myself.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote:
Sage's point was originally that Pved's comment was taken out of context in this thread. In the thread were Pved said that, there was indeed reference to an idiot jumping into a lion pen to proselytize some lions. He did indeed get attacked. I remember showing the article linked to Lyinar. We both had a chuckle and said things to the effect of "What an idiot" and "Moron".In that context, Sage's statements were not out of bounds. Taken OUT of context, the comment Pved made is crude. In context, in a thread with a guy who jumped down into a lion's den to (of all things) try and convert the lions, well. I've seen people make worse attempts at dry wit.
Fact is that if Pved felt his comments were misinterpreted, and wanted to apologize, that's fine. I think what Sage was getting at was that someone deliberately took them out of context to make an argument.
I think the argument is valid (and ironic, as I'll explain in a moment), but that was a poor supporting citation to use. There have certainly been obnoxious cracks about Christians before.
I stand by my earlier statement, however. Certain parties have turned the other cheek more than can reasonably be expected of them. After a certain point, it goes back being clever and something easily ignored, and becomes instead abusive. I find it ironic that we are once again at a crossroads where one party says "Hey c'mon not cool" and others are telling them to have a thicker skin. I've heard that particular argument here at EC a number of times. It's quasi-valid. All I can say is that I guess a threshold point on religious belief bashing has been reached.
But attacking Sage for calling someone on using a bad supporting clause to their overall argument is stupid. It was an out of context misuse. If I'd used something like that in a debate from my Logic class, I would've gotten marked off, ESPECIALLY given that there are numerous other occasions that could've been drawn from. It hurts your argument if your ringer example is contextually invalid.
If it was just, "Hey c'mon not cool," or "Damn, that's getting really annoying," (assuming the example was actually appropriate), I'd have had no problem. That's a bit different than creating an anti-Christian conspiracy out of whole cloth just to have a better target for insults than a single person.
Here's an idea: quit whining about the injustice of it all, and simply address each instance as it happens, and directly to the author. What a concept.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Maradon! was all like:
That's a different matter entirely.
No, it just goes to show that social conformism is at least as much a factor in the continued popularity of Christianity as it is with the resurgence of long-dead wiccian beliefs, the motive is the same, to fit in with a specific peer group, in one case that peer group might be proper conservative society in another it might be 16 year old goth girls, the existance of this however does not exclude the possibility that some people actually believe in those belief sets, both religions require a leap of faith aka someone coming to the realization that Jesus is the son of God or that life is a gift given by the Earth-Mother without a factual reason.
Leaps of faith rarely come as a bolt of divine inspiration, people believe because they want to believe, because whatever they believe gives them something they want, purpose, comfort, motivation, peace of mind, whatever.
You place far too much of an emphasis on continuity of worship, if there had been a period of history during which Islam had been practiced rarely or not at all due to cultural circumstances, would that prevent anyone born after that period from being a 'true' muslim even if he does happen to believe that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet?
It's a myth that it's a re-emergence of an ancient religion.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage stopped beating up furries long enough to write:It's a myth that it's a re-emergence of an ancient religion.
That's not what the tab on my box of tea said.
quote:
This one time, at Lashanna camp:
That's not what the tab on my box of tea said.
Yeah, I got gypped the same way on a lovely purple power crystal.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
If you'll read, the brain cell thing had nothing to do with taste; it had to do with the ability to discern whether the joke was a joke or a hate-mongering ploy by someone with an abiding hatred of Christians. I never said anyone had to like the joke, only that it would take an idiot not to recognize it as a propos to the sitiuation and not a mindless attacke on Christians.
Yes, I think most people understood that it was a joke. That does not change the fact that some jokes can be considered offensive to people. Some may take the joke as being an attack on Christians as well. In this case, the joke offended Christians and some took it to be an attack. Just because something is a joke doesn't mean everyone should say "haha" and ignore it.
quote:
YGBSM. What thread are you reading. Did you read, oh, I don't know. . .the original post, maybe?
I think you might have misread. He called the comment disgusting, but not the group who hate Christians. There's a difference. Furthermore, those who hate Christians because they are Christians are Christians are ignorant. If they did have any knowledge of Christians, they'd have a reason to hate Christians. That would make them people who hate Christians for a reason, and not simply because they are Christians. Or did you mean the blindly anti-Christian group sinking lower comment? Well, it is the truth isn't it? It has gotten worse and worse. How is that an insult?
On there other hand, you said "hypersensitive pricks who don't deserve an apology". That is indeed an insult. Its your opinion and not necessarily the truth. "anyone with even a single functioning brain cell could see that Pvednes' comment was simply a joke" is also an insult. Definitely not the truth, because we wouldn't be typing here if we were without a single functioning braincell.
There's a difference in the commentary of Parce and you. His comments sound like insults, but they do have some base in reality and the comments do have truth to them. Your comments are baseless insults and I doubt you could portray them any differently.
quote:
Okay, now you've made it clear you've not even read the damned thread. The quotes are from the initial post. You know--the one I quoted and directed my comments toward?
Excuse me, I thought you were "quoting" me. A little confusion there.
quote:
If you want to argue with me, it's crucial that you be able to read. You can take it for granted that I'm not simply making things up. There's even this handy little miniature thread down there below the reply container that you can reference, if you need to.
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific and quoted it. I was referring to this comment; Anyone who tells jokes I find offensive is a blind bigot spreading hatred against my most closely held beliefs." Nobody has put it that way, except for you. Quite sorry for the confusion.
quote:
So your contention remains that Parcelan is being not only reasonable, but tolerant when he takes an obvious joke about a lunatic jumping into a lion den to convert the lions and responds, "This is perhaps one of the most singularly disgusting things I've ever heard espoused from even the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians." Yet I'm somehow elitest when I say he's being a prick for flying off the handle at something that was obviously not meant to be offensive and wildly generalizing about the intelligence and motives of anyone who would dare make a Christian joke? Where do you get this stuff?
Its all a matter of opinion here. To him, even if it was a joke, it may be "perhaps one of the most singularly disgusting things I've ever heard espoused from even the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians." That is his opinion. (Remember he made a comment on the comment and an observation of the group, but did necessarily not say that all members of the group believe this.) You feel that he is a "hypersensitive prick" for having this opinion. In other words, you feel your opinion holds more worth than his opinion. Doesn't that make you an elitist by definition?
quote:
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific and quoted it. I was referring to this comment; Anyone who tells jokes I find offensive is a blind bigot spreading hatred against my most closely held beliefs." Nobody has put it that way, except for you. Quite sorry for the confusion.
Bullshit. Read the fucking post that started this thread. That quotation is a quite accurate paraphrase of this:
quote:
"So many Christians...so few lions..."As quoted by our good friend, Pvednes, in this thread.
This is perhaps one of the most singularly disgusting things I've ever heard espoused from even the ignorant lips of people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians.
Unless you'd care to point out how my concise paraphrase fails to represent accurately the above several paragraphs, I suggest you concede the point and quit making shit up.
This thread began with Parcelan making wild accusations and generalization unsupported by his example, which, regardless of whether it offends you, cannot be taken by an intelligent person to represent "people who blindly hate Christians for the mere fact that they're Christians."
I don't give a shit whether you found the joke funny or if it offended you; going off on a foaming rant about anti-Christian hatred and conspiracies is stupid, unwarranted, and worse than the offense being whining about. In short, anyone who goes from that particular joke in that particular context to that particular rant is a prick. And therefore forfeits any right to an apology.
The only one generalizing is the original poster, thank you.
As for my comments being baseless, that's simply one more example of your inability to read simple English. "You're a prick!" is a baseless insult. "You're a prick for doing X," is, by definition, not a baseless insult. Now go read my post and figure out whether I based my insult upon specific behaviors. Honestly, how can you even write this stuff?
Finally, get over the ridiculous notion that all opinions are equal simply because they're opinions. That's stupid. It's not elitest to distinguish between opinions; it's called rational thought. You should try it some time. An opinion is a conclusion based on a chain of reasoning. It is only as good as the reasoning that supports it. Parcelan's rant is in no way reasonable given Pvednes' joke--especially the imputation of motive and implication of conspiracy. My opinion is a rather straightforward assessment of someone who flips out, days later, over a joke not even aimed at him, then spreads insults liberally about the place in misplaced righteous fury at nonexistent conspiracies.
Feel free to disagree, but cease with the moronic insistence that all opinions are equal. Unless you're up to an in-depth analysis of deconstruction and the philosophy of meaning. In which case, you'd still be wrong, but you'd at least have an intellectual leg to stand on.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
