Author
|
Topic: Respect my ass (Read 43182 times)
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Deus_Siddis, you spam posts everywhere as bad as Vallagar but at least he's halfway civil and easy to disregard if need be. Your posts on the other hand cause my eyes to bleed. Could you please sit and think a little bit before taking a virtual shit all over a topic? Or stop posting.
OMGZORS!1!1! So instead of killing thousands of our own babies with doctors, the more "Conservative" national government instead will focus on killing thousands of 3rd world babies with bombs! What a huge difference! Bombs aren't licensed to kill babies, damnit! !
. . .Or then again maybe it won't make any change after all, since lobbying by the private sector is what REALLY makes the difference, everything else is just a political game by little politicians so that they can get reelected and then get greased by big money some more.
As I keep telling people, if this country were a movie, then the "powerful" politicians would be the B actors, the political strategists like Karl Rove would be the directors and the upper class corporate folks would be the producers holding all the cards. And the liberal and conservative voters? They are the chumps who go to the movies to see the same old special effects and plot formulae and crap for the hundredth time.
Yeah, you see this? I want this pretentious conspiracy theorist crap off my monitor.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 10, 2007, 04:06:47 am by Shiver »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
Shiver
Deus_Siddis, you spam posts everywhere as bad as Vallagar but at least he's halfway civil and easy to disregard if need be.
Are you drunk? I rarely post at all anymore. Like Death_999, my post count has been built up over years. I am not sure why you are bringing Vallagar into this either, though I have not been keeping up with this forum very much lately. Something is not spam if a person believes, it is well thought out and it is not repeated everywhere by that poster.
I apologize if I seemed uncivil before, that was not my intention and I had no reason to then. I just thought some of the stuff you said was funny.
Your posts on the other hand cause my eyes to bleed. Could you please sit and think a little bit before taking a virtual shit all over a topic?
Well right back at you, even if you don't like what I have to say, at least I try and make points and counterpoints instead of just spewing lame generic insults like "your posts make my eyes bleed" or "you're taking a virtual shit on this topic" that's not debating, that's just flamming.
Or stop posting.
Or you could try and post intelligent counter arguments instead of going ape shit with the help of your Pirate's Dictionary O' Cursin'.
Yeah, you see this? I want this pretentious conspiracy theorist crap off my monitor.
That is easily remedied, just find a hard, heavy object and then give your screen two hard blows and the "crap" will no longer be visible on your monitor, I promise.
Anyway, what conspiracy theory? It is simply a matter of greed. Greed being the main driving force in our society (no secret there) makes money a very useful tool. But things like the media and politicians are tools with uses as well, especially for making more money when used efficiently. By putting money into these, you can increase awareness of your brand or product(s) (advertising) and get numerous special benefits from the government (contracts, favorable trade policies, etc.)
There is nothing exciting, secret or evil about it. That is why real conspiracy theorists can never make sense, they want to live in a dramatic universe full of darkness, mysteries and alien/cyborg/whatever villians. The real world is much less exciting then even you think it is.
You see, you are trying to peg me backwords, I am saying there is less going on, not more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Are you drunk? I rarely post at all anymore. Like Death_999, my post count has been built up over years. I am not sure why you are bringing Vallagar into this either, though I have not been keeping up with this forum very much lately. Something is not spam if a person believes, it is well thought out and it is not repeated everywhere by that poster.
I apologize if I seemed uncivil before, that was not my intention and I had no reason to then. I just thought some of the stuff you said was funny.
You are right, the comparison to Vallagar was pretty inept. I mentally filed you away as someone who posts way too much spew that isn't worth reading right next to him, but there are enough distinct traits to seperate the both of you. Vallagar is a fairly likeable poster in spite of his habit of flooding every topic, for instance.
The idea I was trying to get across to you before was simple, straighforward and basically true. Your response to this was antagonistic to an extreme and really did not make any sense. I said the American religious right could possibly lead to the end of abortion and you responded with:
OMGZORS!1!1! So instead of killing thousands of our own babies with doctors, the more "Conservative" national government instead will focus on killing thousands of 3rd world babies with bombs! What a huge difference! Bombs aren't licensed to kill babies, damnit! !
Read this bit one more time and tell me you weren't being a major-league asshole. If abortion is a serious issue to you (which I doubt, making the above seem bizarre), state your case for it like an adult.
You see, you are trying to peg me backwords, I am saying there is less going on, not more.
I see that now and it is to your credit, but you do tend to ramble and push tired cliches along the lines of "people? MORE LIEK SHEEPLE LOL". These are things commonly associated with conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
You are right, the comparison to Vallagar was pretty inept. I mentally filed you away as someone who posts way too much spew that isn't worth reading right next to him, but there are enough distinct traits to seperate the both of you. Vallagar is a fairly likeable poster in spite of his habit of flooding every topic, for instance.
Okay, you are not huge Vallagar or me fans then. I do not need everyone to like me, fair enough. Though this disdain you have for me seems a little sudden and spontaneous, I do not think I said anything that horrible a couple posts ago. Perhaps you were just having a bad day or are secretly much closer to the abortion issue than you have let on?
.Your response to this was antagonistic to an extreme and really did not make any sense. I said the American religious right could possibly lead to the end of abortion
My response to that was that it was not very important of an issue when you are talking about the so called "power" of the country. And there is no moral improvement from the liberal and conservative sides, they are just opposite ends of a few issues that will keep them voting against each other for a long time to come. And in the meantime, these voters on the right and left wings of public opinion will not care about the issues that the private sector will be lobbying for and against, they will be so inflammed about abortion or another non-economic issue. And abortion does not affect corporate profits either way, so no, the real driving force does not care, meaning the politicians are clear to pass this issue back and forth two each other to continue to get votes, get reelected and then get more pay-offs.
Read this bit one more time and tell me you weren't being a major-league asshole.
I was not being a major league ass hole. If I had just not sarcastically and jokingly said the "1337" "OMGZORS!1!1!" thing you would have no reason to be upset and wouldn't be, I'm sure. That was just one mistake, I did not think you would take this as more than a joke/sarcasm. But if I did screw up somewhere else, please tell me where?
If abortion is a serious issue to you (which I doubt, making the above seem bizarre), state your case for it like an adult.
Abortion is seriously irrelevant to the issue of power. It is one issue with fairly balanced side on either end of it. Where was the religious right all these years that it has been in power? Either they just started up a few years ago or maybe there is an equally determined/demanding voter force on the other side stalemating them? You know, the folks who call themselves liberals or "progressives"? These two minorities prevent each other from ever having any real power, that is why they hate each other. They are also not as wealthy as other influences, so all they can really provide are votes, which is just one half of the equation for politicians.
As for what I think of abortion, it is in the line you just quoted. I honestly don't know what to think of it specifically but I know not to sugar coat it as an 'operation' and I know what moral impacts it has on everything else for someone with half a heart and a quarter of a brain.
So I think someone is two-faced if they want to complain about the collateral damage caused by US military action in Iraq to civilians while being pro choice. There's just no way around that, even though one side will say "oh its a woman's right to 'choose'" or "oh we have to protect our own people". So basically what I think on this issue is that if there is an excuse for killing your own innocent children (and thinking a late term baby can only feel once it takes its first breath is not the position of an intelligent person, lets be honest) then there is just as easily an excuse for doing a large variety of other things that involving killing people. So you have to decide if you accept violence against innocents as a whole or not, and then bicker over the details. Or just say you don't care about morallity or fairness at all.
Personally though, I don't know, I am trapped between my feelings and my knowledge of what a bloody place the world is and just how unrealistic it is to try and put up huge moral walls that might inhibit survival within it.
I see that now and it is to your credit, but you do tend to ramble and push tired cliches along the lines of "people? MORE LIEK SHEEPLE LOL". These are things commonly associated with conspiracy theorists.
Wrong. Most of the people I did not mention, because they do not vote and thus make much less of a difference (they are apathetic for one reason or another). Those "SHEEPLE LOL" are not cowardly sheep at all, they are more like focused predators that are stalking one or a few specific issues or perhaps more like stalwart warriors who battle each other for indefinite periods of time because they do not want to give an inch of ground. Either way their dualistic narrowmindedness means they have no real power.
But you are right of course, I should not saying anything that sounds vaguely like something a conspiracy theorist might say. Do they use a lot of pronouns? Maybe I should stop using those as well. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
Meep, aren't you sanctioning bigotry in a way? There are gradations between automatic respect and bigotry. (This is also a reply to your other points which I don't repeat here)
True, but if the scientific elite are condoned for such behavior, the thought is that it can be built upon by others and justified further and further until it gets out of hand.
1st) My original quote was referring to Richard Dawkins who, unlike us, is a public figure. Thus his responsibilities are different than ours imo. Why? (Btw -- and I do not intend this as an argument for or against anything -- Dawkins probably wouldn't be such a public figure if he wasn't so confrontational.)
Very true, his confrontational "style" probably makes his celebrity, but this is science we are talking about not Simon Cowell on American idol. Isn't the idea to popularize and arouse interest in science for all walks of life rather than humiliate and marginalize certain groups?
It depends on what you mean by "respect". (see my previous postings in this thread).
Seems we are talking mostly the same language here.
And about Bush. He's an extremist and that scares me as well. He thinks he's acting upon God's will. Hell I'm a registered democrat, if I was to ever vote republican he or she would have to be very, very moderate.That said, don't let one bad apple spoil the apple cart. Most religious people I've met are kind and overall generous people. It may be different in your country.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3873
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Deus, shiver, cool it.
Deus: your post was out of line:
Shiver had a real point which you ignored, mockingly and with no substance. The religious right may not get everything it wants, but it does get something out of its relationship with the republican party. Its ability to get this is called 'power'.
Shiver:
DS hasn't been spamming. He's been on the bottom side of one argument recently, and that's it. So your post was a baseless accusation.
Now both of you stand in the corner and think about what you've done.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Deus, shiver, cool it.
Apparently you are unaware of what thread you are on. Religion, Politics, welcome to the warzone my friend. 
Deus: your post was out of line:
Shiver had a real point which you ignored, mockingly and with no substance.
My tact was off and I apologize for that, I was not being totally serious, but I did not lack substance, re-read what I said or be more specific about your critism.
The religious right may not get everything it wants, but it does get something out of its relationship with the republican party.
It gets very, very little. The current administration and republican party have only paid them lip service in public and mocked them in private. Remember gay marriage from not too long ago? Where was their power there, they obviously cared about the issue.
Its ability to get this is called 'power'.
If by power you mean media attention then yes. Otherwise, mostly no.
DS hasn't been spamming. He's been on the bottom side of one argument recently, and that's it. So your post was a baseless accusation.
He already acknoledged that. And the bottom side of what argument? I haven't even been in anything recently.
Now both of you stand in the corner and think about what you've done.
I would but cyberspace is so not three-dimensional, which way is the corner again? 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 2847
|
Meep, aren't you sanctioning bigotry in a way? There are gradations between automatic respect and bigotry. (This is also a reply to your other points which I don't repeat here) True, but if the scientific elite are condoned for such behavior, the thought is that it can be built upon by others and justified further and further until it gets out of hand.
And what do you mean by "such behavior"?
1st) My original quote was referring to Richard Dawkins who, unlike us, is a public figure. Thus his responsibilities are different than ours imo. Why? [nothing]
(Btw -- and I do not intend this as an argument for or against anything -- Dawkins probably wouldn't be such a public figure if he wasn't so confrontational.) Very true, his confrontational "style" probably makes his celebrity, but this is science we are talking about not Simon Cowell on American idol. Isn't the idea to popularize and arouse interest in science for all walks of life rather than humiliate and marginalize certain groups?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
Deus: Again you make a lot of points that are across the board. Some of them are interesting, but I'm trying to stick to one little thing. Even if the Republican politicians themselves don't care about abortion, most of the Republican nominees would definitely put another strictly conservative judge on SCOTUS. They would have to if they wanted to keep their base. The religious right is wacky but they aren't retarded. And since the judge that's most likely to drop dead next is Justice Stevens (a fairly liberal one), that would be enough to swing the balance so that all sorts of laws would be overturned. The only Republican I can see not doing this is Rudy Giulianni, given that he's publically pro-choice.
Now both of you stand in the corner and think about what you've done.
*Grumble*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Hmm, sorry for being gone for a bit, I see I'm slightly behind, still, I'll try to catch up. To begin with, I think I need to clear a few things up. When meep started this he asked why he should have to respect peoples beliefs. I replied with that he has to respect their right to beliefs, and then gave some reasons to respect belief itself. Just so we're clear, the first part (respect the right to belief) seems pretty clear, and if I read everything right we do agree on that (well, you tolerate it, but still)
The second part, why I think you should respect faith in itself, is clearly my own opinion. I'm not saying you have to respect faith, I'm just giving my personal opinions on why I think you should. Seeing as we're bound to have different opinions, I think it's wise to keep in mind that we're just debating opinions, and I'm not trying to present any of this as fact.
I do not contest that courage/stupidity can be incited by various things. But saying you respect faith, because of the courage it can bring, is like saying you appreciate global warming because you appreciate warm weather.
Faith can have both positive and negative results. Why not say that you respect the positive results? That is what you actually mean, isn't it?
No, I respect the act of having faith. I think it takes courage to have faith, but I do not think that it takes only courage. Faith can of course have both positive and negative results, but I believe that the act of having faith (no mater the end result) is a good thing.
This was about "courage". If you do something because of how God will punish you, you're doing it out of fear, quite the opposite of courage. Similarly, if you do something because of how he will reward you, you trust that even if it goes wrong, it will work out in the end. That's not courage either.
Courage is doing something despite that it may turn out bad for you. Taking responsibility for your actions without a God to fall back on, is what takes courage (or stupidity).
This is only true for faith if you assume that the only motivation for doing good is fear of God. That isn't necessarily true. I do good because I believe it is right. I'm sure God sees me in both my weakness and strength, and that he'll judge me one day, but that act of judgement isn't what makes me do what I do. I'm also unsure how believing in a supreme being means you don't take responsibility for your own actions. I would think it means that you do so, and that ultimately you're responsible to yourself. His judgement does not affect mine, just as mine does not affect his.
I did not mean to imply that. Let's rephrase my line as "the possibility that all the meaning there is to life is what you give it yourself".
But that's true whether you believe or not. faith is a meaning you give yourself, just as any other. Some live for food, others for drink. Some live for love, and others for faith. We all make our own meaning.
Note that I talked about the possibility of life heaving no (inherent) meaning. I never claimed I believed either way. (I try not to "believe" at all.)
Again, a higher purpose doesn't necessarily imply any other meaning than living. After all, we "know" God created us to inhabit the universe. Who is to say that our purpose is any more than that?
What I mean is that if you do something for the wrong reason, the fact that it worked out right does not excuse doing it for those reasons. I was just making a point by analogy.
Ah, I was possibly confused by the fact that Iraq hasn't worked out so far. It all depends on your outlook on life I suppose. As long as something brings good, I am pleased by the goodness. The motive of a human mind is always murky at best, and no case is absolute of course, but even good from ill intentions is some good. I will judge him in my mind of course, but It is up to the person who did the deed to judge his own intentions, and see if he is lacking or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Sure, you should look at someone's motivation, but I think the way you presented it is a bit backwards.
Usually we judge one's actions based on their motivation, not the other way around.
If someone does something good, great and noble out of greed , does that make greed good, great and noble, or does his motivation make the actions not so good great or noble anymore?
You're right in a way. If you do good, but are motivated by evil, you are obviously not necessarily a good person. But it doesn't mean you need not be.
Anyways the sort of respect you ask of wouldn't be half bad. It seems all you're asking for is an acknowledgement that good things can come out of it. I have no problem with that.
What irks me (and Meep, I think) is that the sort of respect people ask for faith, religion, beliefs, or often any opinions about anything, seems to be equivalent with censoring all criticism of it.
Yeah, everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and voice their opinions/beliefs.
Unfortunately for some, this includes the right of the other guy to believe, and to say, that what they believe is wrong, rediculous, or just plain stupid.
True, but this doesn't just hold for faith. It holds for everything from Vegetarians to Linux fanboys. Everyone believes that their opinion is right, and that they are entitled to more than those that are wrong.
EDIT: Also, for Shiver regarding atheism in Europe as because of the US. You are certainly right that many things that are attached to the US in one way or another have gained some negative publicity. But we simply do not associate Christianity with the US in that way, so that connection isn't made. Your Christians (well the one that make it into the public eye, i.e. the small loud minority) are perceived as some sort of retarded offshoots of christianity, rather than representatives of christendom.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 10, 2007, 07:41:19 pm by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Lukipela
The second part, why I think you should respect faith in itself, is clearly my own opinion.
I am not sure what your definition of "faith" means? I think this has been one of the issues on this thread, some terms have too loose definitions. Do you mean faith the emotion, faith that is not in anyway based on reason or facts, faith that is earned, faith that given automatically?
I'm sure God sees me in both my weakness and strength, and that he'll judge me one day, but that act of judgement isn't what makes me do what I do.
faith is a meaning you give yourself, just as any other.
These two statements seem like they do not fit together well, unless you are trying to argue from the points of two different positions/entities (which is unclear).
If you create your own meaning, what does it matter how God the god judges you (especially considering you are not afraid of any power he might have over you)?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
