Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Support' started by Voxen, Nov 30, 2006.
dUKE listened to my idea!
I especially liked the second email in which the author wrote this gem.
"Christians have a hard enough time as it is in this society, the last thing we need is another person condemning and stigmatizing us for our beliefs.".
Yeah, I'm sure being part of one of the most popular, powerful, and influential religious groups in the world as well as in history is real tough living. You, and soley you, have the unfair burden of becoming the president of the United States! And I'm sure the extra money dumped onto your laps through tax exemptions and government sponsoring is just a pain to manage. This is indeed a travesty.
Nothing irks me more than Christians in the United States pretending they're the victims of some massive, atheist-speared counterculture. If you can't put up with a few not-so-nice words on a website, then you better cry your river and build a bridge.
No, when in society God is openly mocked and made fun of, yet when Michael Richards says the N word, all of a sudden "OMG! HE iS TeH WRONGZORZ!!!11!".
As for my email, I admit in my anger, I said some dumb things in that email. But I also brought up valid points, which were comepletely ignored when I asked for SERIOUS discussion. I didn't think that was too much too ask.
So you're comparing the criticism of a belief to a discriminatory rant against the way someone was born?
Don't get me wrong, i'm a Christian, and i've been a stout defender of Kramer's post racist reputation, but
I just re-read the review. It did have a light-hearted tone to it, I suppose I just got pissed off at the nail gun bit and religon bashing part at the beginning. Still, I'd like to know WHERE in my email I threatened Duke, as he said I included a vague threat in my email response.
One is mockery at an individual choice. The other is aimed at the skin you're born with and has a relatively recent history of cruelty and subjugation. There is no comparison between the two.
Yes, your god can be and is openly mocked (although you exaggerate the prevalence of this) in US society, just like you're able to openly preach about him and accuse others of being sinful. Such is the beautiful concept of free speech.
But, please. Please don't mistake a few jokes or criticisms of your faith as some kind of systematic oppression. Outspoken atheists or otherwise may live in the country, but Christians run it.
As for the vague threat, it might have been this bit:
Interestingly enough, this may also be the same reason your request for a serious discussion was declined.
What, does Duke think I'm going to assult his family when I don't even know which state he lives in?
The former is a choice and the latter is an unavoidable part of life in which the party has no choice. There's an incredibly large chasm between the two and it was a terrible comparison.
You're still immensly belittling a significant aspect of one's life. But at this point, I see this whole thing as water under the bridge.
Racism could be a significant part of one's life, but that doesn't exclude it from criticism.
There's a difference, though. Skin color and religon aren't really on the same boat as racism.
I beg to differ.
Racism, Sexual Preference, Gender, and Religion are all means of some type of discrimination, criticism, and of course, practical jokes. The difference is you need to realize what falls where when one talks about all of those issues.
Racism and religion are conscious choices. As to whether religion and racism can be compared in terms of ethical implications... I'd argue that they can. Personally, I don't think there's enough criticism.
But that's really irrelevant. The inevitability of free speech is that you will hear things you do not like, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that until it crosses over into violence-inciting hate speech (which the review clearly was not). And when you have faith in an unproven magic entity, you need to expect discourse that occasionally chaffs.
You're a free man. You can tune it out or contest it if you want. But if writing like Dukes is the reason "free speech is no longer around in our society", then there was never any to begin with.
Okay, I am so sorry but I'm outraged on the results of the so called match and the review. Look, I respect atheists and atheism but when I saw the results of both, I was shaked. BY THE TIME I'M WRITING THIS MESSAGE, I AM FEELING REALLY SICK OUT OF IT. I'M NOW TRYING TO CONTROL MY ANGER EVEN I WANTED TO SMASH THE MOUSE AND TO SPEAK OUT CURSE WORDS. PEOPLE, REMEMBER THIS: EVEN THE HERETIC THAT ALL OF YOUR HERE ARE ATHEISTS, YOU MUST STILL PUT IN YOUR MIND THAT THERE ARE SOME WHO RETAINED THEIR FAITH, AND I'M ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
^ That's obvious. Why else would you get irrationally emotional and want to smash things?
^He's The Hulk?
And when did colored text come into play?
The Hulk is green, dummy.
What the hell did you just say? I'm going to assume the summary equates to "how dare you say that about my faith", from which I can surmise that you're Christian, or at least religious. I also picked out the word 'heretic'. Well, ok from your perspective we probably are and I'm sure there are some who would flame you for calling them that but I'll refer to Voltaire's quote:
and of course the gem from Judge Sedley which I have already quoted in another topic:
Both these illustrate my point, you have your beliefs, I have mine, we both have the right to preach our own beliefs while denouncing others so getting into this kind of argument is tricky, after all the only way to 'win' as such is to convert a person's belief and that is not an easy thing. It's all very well to say "oh no! They're questioning my faith, it's not fair! WAAAAHHHH!" but why bother? Is this tiny website with its humorous review going to threaten the foundation of your very beliefs? I'd like to think no, it's not going to, is it going to make others question their beliefs? Well if it does then perhaps their faith wasn't too strong to begin with.
Now, let's take a look at another facet of the argument, you're offended by the review and yet you expect atheists to allow you to preach your faith unabated? Why shouldn't we atheists be offended at the sight of Christ on the cross? Hmm...
Oh, on a side note, *giggle* at your post count
I think argument topics are fine, but can we not perhaps at least keep them civilised? It's ok to have your own beliefs, but trying to argue them by insulting other people is just damn ignorant.
By the way, this post is directed at no-one in particular, more of an overall complaint to all concerned. And it is certainly not confined to this topic alone.