Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

etc., etc.

View
29 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

29. nevermore and forevermore Jul 20, 2012, 12:10 space captain
 
I've already dissected you to my satisfaction. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expose a bit of your madness to the light of day.

The rest shall remain in darkness...
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 12:01 Eirikrautha
 
space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 11:40:
Let me give you an example of what I am saying. If you have a disease as deadly and contagious as something like the black plague, and there is no cure for it or at least not enough time to make one, then the only reasonable solution is to destroy the source of the disease "for the greater good" of everyone else who has not been infected. If that means you die, then so be it. Your diseased life is certainly not as important or valuable to the species as the numerous people around you who are not infected.

If you are advocating killing yourself to protect others, then I have no quarrel with you. If you are advocating others deciding when you should die "for the good of all," then you are a fool.

space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 11:40:
Gravity is a physical law that is easily observable and provable.

Ok. Explain how gravity works at the level of the very small (quantum gravity). Or why certain regions of the observable universe seem to have more gravity than the matter that is observable? See, 200 years ago gravity was a force. Now it's a curvature of space-time. 200 years from now, we'll "know" it is something else.

There's a big difference in recognizing the way that nature behaves when tested, and asserting that we can use the limited knowledge we have to justify forcing others to do what we want (which is the heart of your argument). That you would justify force based on your "knowledge" is what makes you just like those "fundamentalist" Christians that you are so afraid of.

space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 11:40:
You sound like a christian apologist trying to get out of the suffocating bag over your head. Who is forcing anyone of anything here? You are forcing yourself into a misshapen and inaccurate perception of what I have said, distorting things so they fit your agenda. Its classic fundamentalist behavior. If you want to argue logic, you need to be able to understand that 1 + 1 = 2, no matter how much you want to say that 1 = "something else".

I smell your desperation. Good luck with that bag.

Hahahaha, project much? The fact that I am literate enough to have read C.S. Lewis doesn't mean I agree with his religious beliefs. It just makes it less likely that I'm some caustic ignoramus that needs to descend into ad hominems when I'm getting my intellectual clock cleaned (sound familiar to you?).

Maybe if you were secure in your own belief systems you wouldn't see the "christian boogeyman" behind every corner...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 11:44 Eirikrautha
 
InBlack wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:55:

Lets get this part straight. REASON has nothing to do with Stalin, that dude was FUCKING INSANE!!!!!

He might not have been reasonable, but he had his reasons...

The stated motive is exactly what we are discussing. People do stupid, insane stuff in the name of religion... and in the "name" of science and progress, too. If you don't think Stalin and his ilk justified their carnage this way, you need to read a history book or two. Stalin did not kill anyone himself. He created an entire social machinery of death... and that requires convincing others that what you are doing is right. And he did his convincing using "science" (granted the "science" of dialectical materialism and marxism, but he still called it "science" and his followers believed that it was)...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 11:40 space captain
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:45:
Wrong. More people have been killed (~120 million) in the last century in the name of "science", "materialism" (as opposed to religion), and "the laws of nature" than from all of the world religions combined.


Its only wrong if survival is wrong. This is in regards of what I am actually saying, instead of your idea that it compares with Hitler and Stalin (hello Godwin). If you consider survival of the human species to be wrong, then that is your choice. The quotes are yours, as are the conclusions you have jumped to.

Let me give you an example of what I am saying. If you have a disease as deadly and contagious as something like the black plague, and there is no cure for it or at least not enough time to make one, then the only reasonable solution is to destroy the source of the disease "for the greater good" of everyone else who has not been infected. If that means you die, then so be it. Your diseased life is certainly not as important or valuable to the species as the numerous people around you who are not infected.

Its pretty clear cut. Human understanding of physical laws is incredibly basic, but there are some things we do have understanding of, and therefore can use as leverage to protect ourselves.

Attempted genocide, as in the Crusades and WW2 and so forth - that is not "for the greater good" of anything except ideology. Its not based in physical reality.



Eirikrautha wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:45:
Your basic point is correct: the "greater good" is the most dangerous of all motives. Even though you try to exempt what I would guess is your defining principles/values (reverence for "physical laws"... whatever MAN defines them as),

Gravity is a physical law that is easily observable and provable. So is math. There are plenty of things that are not open to debate (especially to people as impotent as you). You cannot talk your way out of gravity, and fly off into the air like some kind of holy angel, no matter how sacred or "special" you consider yourself to be. You are not special, you are just like all the other brainwashed automatons that are unable to think for themselves.


Eirikrautha wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:45:
I would argue that their is no difference. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, the "do-gooder" is the most dangerous of all tyrants, because he can do whatever he wants to you and go home and sleep with a clear conscience.

The real problem is the notion that anyone can determine what is "good" for someone else. When you start forcing people to do something for their own good... well, that's when you've become the evil in this equation. If you can convince someone that something is, in fact, good for them, why would you need to force them?

You sound like a christian apologist trying to get out of the suffocating bag over your head. Who is forcing anyone of anything here? You are forcing yourself into a misshapen and inaccurate perception of what I have said, distorting things so they fit your agenda. Its classic fundamentalist behavior. If you want to argue logic, you need to be able to understand that 1 + 1 = 2, no matter how much you want to say that 1 = "something else".

I smell your desperation. Good luck with that bag.
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 10:55 InBlack
 
Eirikrautha wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:45:
space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:28:
Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:55:
For example the Christian churches around here all have active Facebook/twitter pages, indoctrinate youth at very early ages and teach their patrons to practice the more fanatical aspects only in organized groups approved by the church.


The most dangerous excuse for anything is when something is done "for the greater good", because it can be used to justify all kinds of absolutist philosophies. Essentially, its a real consideration but that doesnt stop anyone from twisting it into a personal or ideological agenda, it actually makes it easier. The only time it is really applicable is when it refers to physical laws instead of man-made laws...

Wrong. More people have been killed (~120 million) in the last century in the name of "science", "materialism" (as opposed to religion), and "the laws of nature" than from all of the world religions combined. Stalin was not advocating "religion" when he starved 20 of his own people, or ordered another 40 million into gulags. He did it in the name of "science" and "progress."

Your basic point is correct: the "greater good" is the most dangerous of all motives. Even though you try to exempt what I would guess is your defining principles/values (reverence for "physical laws"... whatever MAN defines them as), I would argue that their is no difference. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, the "do-gooder" is the most dangerous of all tyrants, because he can do whatever he wants to you and go home and sleep with a clear conscience.

The real problem is the notion that anyone can determine what is "good" for someone else. When you start forcing people to do something for their own good... well, that's when you've become the evil in this equation. If you can convince someone that something is, in fact, good for them, why would you need to force them?

Stalin didnt starve his own people, he starved Ukranians and Poles and he didnt do it for Science and Progress he did it because it was politicaly convinient and because he was a fucking lunatic tyrant.

Fucking shit, I hate people bringing up Stalin in every single REASON vs FAITH debate or discussion.

Lets get this part straight. REASON has nothing to do with Stalin, that dude was FUCKING INSANE!!!!!
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 10:45 Eirikrautha
 
space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 10:28:
Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:55:
For example the Christian churches around here all have active Facebook/twitter pages, indoctrinate youth at very early ages and teach their patrons to practice the more fanatical aspects only in organized groups approved by the church.


The most dangerous excuse for anything is when something is done "for the greater good", because it can be used to justify all kinds of absolutist philosophies. Essentially, its a real consideration but that doesnt stop anyone from twisting it into a personal or ideological agenda, it actually makes it easier. The only time it is really applicable is when it refers to physical laws instead of man-made laws...

Wrong. More people have been killed (~120 million) in the last century in the name of "science", "materialism" (as opposed to religion), and "the laws of nature" than from all of the world religions combined. Stalin was not advocating "religion" when he starved 20 of his own people, or ordered another 40 million into gulags. He did it in the name of "science" and "progress."

Your basic point is correct: the "greater good" is the most dangerous of all motives. Even though you try to exempt what I would guess is your defining principles/values (reverence for "physical laws"... whatever MAN defines them as), I would argue that their is no difference. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, the "do-gooder" is the most dangerous of all tyrants, because he can do whatever he wants to you and go home and sleep with a clear conscience.

The real problem is the notion that anyone can determine what is "good" for someone else. When you start forcing people to do something for their own good... well, that's when you've become the evil in this equation. If you can convince someone that something is, in fact, good for them, why would you need to force them?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 10:32 Eirikrautha
 
Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:55:
I have to agree with you, certainly not in our lifetime. A friend of mine likes to point to the downfall of the Catholic church in Europe as an example of society becoming less dependent on religion but I'm not convinced. Unfortunately it seems like many people will just replace one faith for another.

And there it is in a nutshell. Most of the inhabitants of the Western world haven't rejected religion; they've replaced it! Talk to a radical environmentalist... they show all the signs of the true believer: reverence for a (man-made) concept of nature and the natural, a distorted view of what is "reasonable" (I've had some argue with me that we need to start killing off entire human populations in order to "save" the Earth... just not them, of course), an unwillingness to debate or attempt to see the other point of view, etc. It's all there.

The reality is that human beings are pack animals. It's the way we evolved. We have a strong mental "need" to associate with our "pack"... but many more ways nowadays to define what our "pack" is. Where religion has long been a binding social force, most people can't (and won't) simply give up overarching belief systems. It's not in their nature. They just replace one with another. So while organized religion is shrinking, people replace their Christianity (or whatever) with their politics, their belief in the environment, materialism, or even... dare I say... their sexuality.

The whole argument over gay marriage IS fundamentally religious in nature, simply because the hardcore gay activists have adopted their sexuality as their new "religion". It is a fundamental defining characteristic to them (their "pack"), in the same way that someone's Catholicism might have been 500 years ago.

So when you see gay marriage vs "normal" marriage, all you are seeing is the same old argument: Catholic vs Protestant, Baptist vs Lutheran... it's just one religion trying to gain dominance over the older more established religion...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 10:28 space captain
 
Verno wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:55:
For example the Christian churches around here all have active Facebook/twitter pages, indoctrinate youth at very early ages and teach their patrons to practice the more fanatical aspects only in organized groups approved by the church.


The most dangerous excuse for anything is when something is done "for the greater good", because it can be used to justify all kinds of absolutist philosophies. Essentially, its a real consideration but that doesnt stop anyone from twisting it into a personal or ideological agenda, it actually makes it easier. The only time it is really applicable is when it refers to physical laws instead of man-made laws... and thats why "God" is used as an excuse.

Spirituality is the most private thing there is.. it should not have anything to do with social regulations (i.e. socialism!!!!) but that is how the big religions operate, and is arguably why they are as big and influential as they are.

The necessity of people helping other people, forgiveness, acceptance, etc. is not a religious consideration, its a requirement for the survival of a species that has such high populations in such close proximity. In the past, social regulation was directly linked to religion because that is how cultures identified themselves in ancient times, and gave them a sense of authority that was higher than other cultures, people, etc. and most importantly, it kept the peace. The law-enforcement infrastructure was infinitely less effective in that era, regarding public revolt and so forth.

but that time is passing.. It wont really lose its effect on governmental regulation until people can take responsibility for their own lives in a way that does not use "God" (or really anything else) as an excuse.

the hypocrisy is all-encompassing, and frankly infuriating, considering the actual purpose of various wisdom teachings and what they are REALLY saying
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 10:07 InBlack
 
Prez wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:30:
prez you are really giving those people too much credit, and because of that i would tend to assume you know someone like this personally at a friend/family level and are trying to give them benefit of the doubt

Well, you basically hit the nail on the head. My entire family, immediate, cousins, distant relatives, in-laws... everyone are Christians. My soul mate, my wife of 20 years is one. I know her better than anyone else, and I know for a fact she is a good and decent person despite her differing ideology.

But yeah, it gives me a different perspective and a desire to at least try to be respectful of their beliefs even when I don't agree, which frankly is most of the time.

My girlfriend of about three years is also a devout Christian and a practicing Catholic. Although a very sensible person, when it comes to religion and God its like she becomes another person. All sense is thrown in the wind. I respect her and her beliefs but sometimes it pains me to see someone I love behave irrationally. She too respects my atheist views, although I believe her family is having a hard time coping with it.
There is another burgeoning problem. Because of her upbringing, family 'values' and beliefs, she has quite a differnt worldview from mine. In my country nationalism and religion are very closely linked and on occasion this has come up in conversations with friends and some of her views seemed to be very bigoted, prejudiced and well to but it bluntly, very right winged. We talked about it of course and she assures me that I misheard or that I took things out of context and that though she has a conservative upbringing she is very liberal, has gay friends etc. etc. She has mostly reassured me, but I still have lingering doubts.

I dont think I could forgive her if it turns out that she was lying to me, that would be infinitely worse than her outlook and beliefs ever could be.

I guess my point is that religious people can be both rational and irrational which is why Im anxious and doubtful.

In any case KUDOS to you Prez.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 09:55 Verno
 
i doubt it will happen in our lifetime, but if humanity manages to survive for another century or two, it seems like a logical conclusion given how far we have come since civil rights movements just 50 years ago

I have to agree with you, certainly not in our lifetime. A friend of mine likes to point to the downfall of the Catholic church in Europe as an example of society becoming less dependent on religion but I'm not convinced. Unfortunately it seems like many people will just replace one faith for another. Plus it took hundreds of abuse/sex scandals and a massive wave of immigrants practicing other religions to get to that point. Imagine trying to displace organized religion in the Middle East and what that will take. Most organized religions are much more adaptable than Catholicism proved to be. For example the Christian churches around here all have active Facebook/twitter pages, indoctrinate youth at very early ages and teach their patrons to practice the more fanatical aspects only in organized groups approved by the church.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Dark Souls 2
Watching: Legends, Intruders, Apocalypse Now
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 09:43 space captain
 
Prez wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 09:30:
Well, you basically hit the nail on the head. My entire family, immediate, cousins, distant relatives, in-laws... everyone are Christians. My soul mate, my wife of 20 years is one. I know her better than anyone else, and I know for a fact she is a good and decent person despite her differing ideology.


I get it, because in reality, the relationships between people will always trump any ideological differences... unless you are dealing with psychotically extreme people, such as murderous terrorists

the stuff that really matters is easier to see when you are intimately related to another person in some way

the danger is people who are willing to die for their belief, not because it protects another person(s) life or safety... but because they cannot be "wrong" in their belief to such an extent they will kill instead of changing their mind

these disagreements over legal matters are a matter of society evolving beyond the need of religious control, which has not yet happened on a global scale

i doubt it will happen in our lifetime, but if humanity manages to survive for another century or two, it seems like a logical conclusion given how far we have come since civil rights movements just 50 years ago
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 09:30 Prez
 
prez you are really giving those people too much credit, and because of that i would tend to assume you know someone like this personally at a friend/family level and are trying to give them benefit of the doubt

Well, you basically hit the nail on the head. My entire family, immediate, cousins, distant relatives, in-laws... everyone are Christians. My soul mate, my wife of 20 years is one. I know her better than anyone else, and I know for a fact she is a good and decent person despite her differing ideology.

But yeah, it gives me a different perspective and a desire to at least try to be respectful of their beliefs even when I don't agree, which frankly is most of the time.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 09:10 Cutter
 
Religious hypocrisy in a nutshell.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 09:05 space captain
 
im not sure it can be reduced to "simply semantics", also im in NC right now and its pretty clear that civil unions are also not on the table for gays...

im not clear on the legal differences between civil unions and marriage.. but i just did a small bit of research and it seems clear that they are pretty different

so again, not just semantics, but also very real legal ramifications

prez you are really giving those people too much credit, and because of that i would tend to assume you know someone like this personally at a friend/family level and are trying to give them benefit of the doubt

marriage as a legal institution has been around longer than christianity the religion... they dont have the monopoly on it, they did not create it

the real fear is that something these dumbshits consider "satanic" (lets get real for a second) would be publicly accepted and verified legally, with the same legitimacy as man + woman marriage

its ideological at the root of it and you cant get away from that because it is the whole motivation
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: are you not entertained? Jul 20, 2012, 06:25 Prez
 
Orogogus wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 05:28:
Prez wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 01:47:
All very true, but ask any Christian if they would be okay with homosexuals being legally allowed to enter into a "civil union", which ultimately is EXACTLY the same as marriage in a legal and practical sense and all but the most fanatical ones (who frankly make the vast majority of other Christians uncomfortable because of their inexplicable fervor) are just fine with it.** They may not approve of the behavior but they feel less threatened because their precious word "Marriage" is no longer "under attack", whatever the hell that means.

I haven't found that to be generally true. Legislation to grant marriage-like benefits to same-gender civil unions have been regularly opposed. Legislation to allow civil unions gets blocked when, as you point out, it would be the easiest way to protect the churches' precious marriage, much, much more cheaply than the current campaign. And on an individual basis people I know will spout the same bullshit arguments that the churches and GOP spew. Prop 8 here in California got a lot of people to form an opinion one way or the other.

I guess it would depend on the region, though I live in the "Bible Belt" where one generally finds the most fervent of Christian zealots anywhere, and the percentage of those just adamantly opposed to any kind of legal recognition is pretty small (and usually relegated to the ones standing in front of the church screaming at a mostly bored congregation who generally just want to be good people and live their lives in peace).

The way it seems to me, though of course I could be wrong, as it is in many things, it's always the vocal minority who by virtue of their 'vocality' - and the penchant of the media to continually give fringe radicals the most press - come across as the majority. The vast majority of Christians I know - and having been raised one and practicing up until about 10 years ago, I know a whole lot of them - will quote all the relevant Bible quotes on cue, but when pressed to using logic (yes, most of them actually can) will grudgingly admit that there's really no reason to legally preclude gays from being in state-sanctioned unions. They just want to protect that whole 'marriage' thing. As illogical as that is, it does leave some room for reaching a middle ground.

Admittedly they still vote for the "pro-marriage" candidates, so one could make the argument that they are still part of the problem, but if you really want to reach them, telling them that everything they believe in and hold dear is childish foolishness (even if you believe that it is) is probably not the best way to go about getting them to see reason.

This comment was edited on Jul 20, 2012, 06:41.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: are you not entertained? Jul 20, 2012, 05:28 Orogogus
 
Prez wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 01:47:
All very true, but ask any Christian if they would be okay with homosexuals being legally allowed to enter into a "civil union", which ultimately is EXACTLY the same as marriage in a legal and practical sense and all but the most fanatical ones (who frankly make the vast majority of other Christians uncomfortable because of their inexplicable fervor) are just fine with it.** They may not approve of the behavior but they feel less threatened because their precious word "Marriage" is no longer "under attack", whatever the hell that means.

I haven't found that to be generally true. Legislation to grant marriage-like benefits to same-gender civil unions have been regularly opposed. Legislation to allow civil unions gets blocked when, as you point out, it would be the easiest way to protect the churches' precious marriage, much, much more cheaply than the current campaign. And on an individual basis people I know will spout the same bullshit arguments that the churches and GOP spew. Prop 8 here in California got a lot of people to form an opinion one way or the other.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: etc., etc. Jul 20, 2012, 04:19 J
 
killer_roach wrote on Jul 19, 2012, 22:46:
Lots of sensible stuff posted in a sound manner.
Could you tone it down a bit? Some of us come here for the wild flying accusations and ragefests. You're spoiling my popcorn!
 
Avatar 45926
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: are you not entertained? Jul 20, 2012, 04:03 InBlack
 
'Civil Union' vs 'Marriage'? Again semantics, although Space Captain has hit the nail on the head with his conditioning argument, we are all conditioned in some way. Even though some of us in not as obvious ways as the fundamentalists, our 'free will' if you will is not very 'free' at all....  
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: are you not entertained? Jul 20, 2012, 01:47 Prez
 
space captain wrote on Jul 20, 2012, 00:41:
Prez wrote on Jul 19, 2012, 23:42:
The whole thing is just stupid - with all of the real shit going on we have got elected officials incessantly arguing over what amounts to semantics. Marriage, civil unions, who fucking cares what its called? Let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This certainly is nowhere near the most important issue facing us, but you'd never guess it based on how much press this shit gets every time it comes up.


...The issue of religious fundamentalists campaigning against various aspects of non-traditional or non-ordinary behavior is not new. The most extreme public example in USA is that Westboro church bullshit. Other christian fundamentalists might not be as extreme, but its essentially the same idea, and the logical conclusion of that kind of perspective.

They are the same as those muslims who demand that women wear sheets covering every bit of skin.

Its rampant traditionalism, and the deification of socialization, or conditioning (which btw, differs quite a bit depending on your environment), which is really the most comfortable sanctuary for minds which cannot adapt to actual reality. When the bell rings, the mouth waters. If the "holy" "logic" of blind conditioning were to suddenly fall apart... well, then they would have to find their own way.

Their very survival depends on the maintenance of these traditional values, because they have no independent existence from them. These people are nothing but side effects of society itself. They are not actually "real" in the sense of having individuality.

So, it is a matter of life and death for them.

All very true, but ask any Christian if they would be okay with homosexuals being legally allowed to enter into a "civil union", which ultimately is EXACTLY the same as marriage in a legal and practical sense and all but the most fanatical ones (who frankly make the vast majority of other Christians uncomfortable because of their inexplicable fervor) are just fine with it.** They may not approve of the behavior but they feel less threatened because their precious word "Marriage" is no longer "under attack", whatever the hell that means. Which always makes me ask the question "So what the hell are we arguing about it for?"

** Just be sure to do it on an individual basis - Christians in large groups exhibit a pack mentality and will answer based not on their actual personal ideology but what they feel is the institutionalized, acceptable answer as the "Church" defines it.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. are you not entertained? Jul 20, 2012, 00:41 space captain
 
Prez wrote on Jul 19, 2012, 23:42:
The whole thing is just stupid - with all of the real shit going on we have got elected officials incessantly arguing over what amounts to semantics. Marriage, civil unions, who fucking cares what its called? Let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This certainly is nowhere near the most important issue facing us, but you'd never guess it based on how much press this shit gets every time it comes up.


Its not an argument over semantics. The issue of religious fundamentalists campaigning against various aspects of non-traditional or non-ordinary behavior is not new. The most extreme public example in USA is that Westboro church bullshit. Other christian fundamentalists might not be as extreme, but its essentially the same idea, and the logical conclusion of that kind of perspective.

They are the same as those muslims who demand that women wear sheets covering every bit of skin.

Its rampant traditionalism, and the deification of socialization, or conditioning (which btw, differs quite a bit depending on your environment), which is really the most comfortable sanctuary for minds which cannot adapt to actual reality. When the bell rings, the mouth waters. If the "holy" "logic" of blind conditioning were to suddenly fall apart... well, then they would have to find their own way.

Their very survival depends on the maintenance of these traditional values, because they have no independent existence from them. These people are nothing but side effects of society itself. They are not actually "real" in the sense of having individuality.

So, it is a matter of life and death for them.
 
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo