Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 1:31 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:If that is what you believe others think, then another good example...


So good at pretending not to insult anyone, aren't you?

freeman3 went after Islam, you expanded it to all religion, and then feigned innocence.

Well done, but observed.
No, I expanded it wider than that. If you are offended, that's up to you.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jul 2016, 1:43 pm

So you don't need to worry about words or actions that offend?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 1:47 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:And hey, we can mock religious beliefs, just as much as any other belief. I don't care that you mock science (even with your limited grasp of it). Stopping mockery or criticism of religion is what the enemies of freedom want.


Please. I cannot abide this PC pretense that somehow the attacks are not predominately Muslim. What these "enemies of freedom" want is submission to their version of Islam and nothing less.

My objection was to Tom's declaration that you can't mock religion. That seems to me to be as PC as what you accuse me of.

I never pretended that Islamic attacks do not happen, or that there is no threat. And we know that some will kill for mocking Islam - Charlie Hebdo is one example, here is another: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... adesh.html

But the answer is not to stop mocking religion, or get all precious when it's yours that is mocked. Certainly it is not to tell people what they can't say about religion.

While there is not much Christian terror (there is some), there are those who seek to impose their Christian views on others, whether it is by banning gay marriage, or even in one recent case I saw a local judge refusing to officiate at a non-Christian but heterosexual marriage.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 1:52 pm

bbauska wrote:So you don't need to worry about words or actions that offend?

Doctor Fate has decided to do his mind reading trick again and tell me what I really meant, when not mentioning religion specifically, because he wants to be offended.

That was a process in his head. Read my words again, those that Tom and Steve decided "mock" religion.

"Humans love to believe in non-existent things. Move them from one and they just leap to another."

Maybe I meant silly notions like "Truth, Justice and the American Way", or "sovereign citizens movements", or "I am Napoleon Bonapart"?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jul 2016, 2:22 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:So you don't need to worry about words or actions that offend?

Doctor Fate has decided to do his mind reading trick again and tell me what I really meant, when not mentioning religion specifically, because he wants to be offended.

That was a process in his head. Read my words again, those that Tom and Steve decided "mock" religion.

"Humans love to believe in non-existent things. Move them from one and they just leap to another."

Maybe I meant silly notions like "Truth, Justice and the American Way", or "sovereign citizens movements", or "I am Napoleon Bonapart"?


Rather than saying what you might have meant, tell me what you meant. Clarity is always better than agreement.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 2:37 pm

bbauska wrote:
danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:So you don't need to worry about words or actions that offend?

Doctor Fate has decided to do his mind reading trick again and tell me what I really meant, when not mentioning religion specifically, because he wants to be offended.

That was a process in his head. Read my words again, those that Tom and Steve decided "mock" religion.

"Humans love to believe in non-existent things. Move them from one and they just leap to another."

Maybe I meant silly notions like "Truth, Justice and the American Way", or "sovereign citizens movements", or "I am Napoleon Bonapart"?


Rather than saying what you might have meant, tell me what you meant. Clarity is always better than agreement.


It would be, except he likes what he does--pretending like he doesn't intend what he clearly does.

After all, freeman's post was about Islam and his was in response.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 4:22 pm

I wrote exactly what I meant. Again, DF is the one interpolating his own view of what he wants to think I meant into it.

What I meant is that we as a species are good at cognitive dissonance.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jul 2016, 4:56 pm

If I am to take your words at face value (as I wish to do!), I don't understand what you meant by:
Maybe I meant silly notions like "Truth, Justice and the American Way", or "sovereign citizens movements", or "I am Napoleon Bonapart"?

Other than the spelling error of Bonaparte, which was a typing error and no concern; the maybe is confusing. The fact that I can safely assume that you are not Napoleon is comforting.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jul 2016, 6:33 pm

What I mean is that each of those three beliefs is mere ideology, a belief in things that do not actually exist.

The first is a set of abstract concepts which at first we may all agree exist as such, but if you dig deeper we find that no-one really agrees what the definition of each is. Truth for one man is despicable lies to another. Justice can be about retribution, or atonement, or liberation, or restoration. Some think it includes the death penalty, others think it cannot. The American Way is ever changing and little more than a slogan.

The next statement refers to groups who believe that using arcane and convoluted legal arguments they can show that they are not bound by the same laws as anyone else. Usually it is a tax dodge but some take it seriously and have killed agents of the state.

The last is just a cliché of personal delusion, a little overstated and more about a mental illness but frankly given the oddness that "sane" people swallow whole as fact I sometimes wonder where the line is drawn.

They were in quotes as something a person (not me specifically) may believe that is based on non-existent things.

They are examples, along with the earlier list of categories - "I wasn't limiting it to religion. Some science has been wacky. People have all kinds of beliefs in ghosts, angels, lucky totems, their sports teams, politics, that you can lose weight without using diet and exercise, etc etc." of stuff that humans hold to that don't exist (or areas where beliefs in the non-existent arise).

As to why, I would speculate that we don't like gaps, uncertainty, randomness etc. So we fill the gaps with convenient and simple explanations. Examples are: primitive societies would ask why the sun appeared to move around them overhead and disappear overnight before reappearing, and invented sun-gods in chariots like Apollo; looking up at the night sky and seeing patterns of constellations which are made up of stars which are nowhere near each other but just in a handy similar direction from us and kind of arranged so you could draw a Bear / Plough / Dipper.

Do you get it now? Can we move away from the digression?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jul 2016, 6:41 pm

Thank you for the clarity.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Jul 2016, 9:11 am

God bless and keep this priest whose very ministry promoted the love of enemies and the forgiveness of persecutors. God bless him for his example of love. God bless him for reminding the world that we can not allow ourselves to be caught up with rage and hate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/world/europe/france-church-hostages.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Jul 2016, 6:06 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:God bless and keep this priest whose very ministry promoted the love of enemies and the forgiveness of persecutors. God bless him for his example of love. God bless him for reminding the world that we can not allow ourselves to be caught up with rage and hate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/world/europe/france-church-hostages.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


I cannot believe how some media outlets try to omit Islam and/or ISIS from this attack--and the one in Nice.

Look, not all Muslims blah, blah, blah. But, when they're yelling "Allahu Akhbar" and ISIS is taking credit . . . it would be nice for the media to just be honest.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 5:33 am

Which outlets, and when?

While an incident is ongoing, it is often premature to judge motive. Even in the immediate aftermath, we should allow for some investigation into the facts.

After all, I expect a lot of people jumped to conclusions about the Munich shootings. False rumours and video taken from other incidents did cause a confusing picture.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 3:22 pm

danivon wrote:Which outlets, and when?

While an incident is ongoing, it is often premature to judge motive. Even in the immediate aftermath, we should allow for some investigation into the facts.

After all, I expect a lot of people jumped to conclusions about the Munich shootings. False rumours and video taken from other incidents did cause a confusing picture.


Meh.

Calling the attack in Nice a "truck attack." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nic ... 568f8483d4

It happens all the time, even after the motive has been fully explained.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Jul 2016, 3:35 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Which outlets, and when?

While an incident is ongoing, it is often premature to judge motive. Even in the immediate aftermath, we should allow for some investigation into the facts.

After all, I expect a lot of people jumped to conclusions about the Munich shootings. False rumours and video taken from other incidents did cause a confusing picture.


Meh.

Calling the attack in Nice a "truck attack." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nic ... 568f8483d4

It happens all the time, even after the motive has been fully explained.

Has it? The article you cited does mention that IS claim responsibility, but also,
authorities say they have yet to find evidence that the 31-year-old, who was shot dead by police, had any actual links to the militant group.