"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Greatguardian]

Ah yes, the claim that being annoyed by bashing somehow means I think I'm being oppressed. And also hardcore. I remember you, too.

j/k, I don't.

I call it bashing when a group of people use hateful generalizations to support their claims. I also call it stupid, counterproductive, and annoying. Which side happens to have the power to enforce their generalizations is irrelevant; It's still a hateful generalization. Stooping to their level type of thing.

Obviously I'm not being oppressed, because that's where which side has power IS relevant.

Also, isn't bashing?

You really think you're going to be able to point out good qualities of religion as a general entity in a room full of secular humanists?

You really think that the balance of power is irrelevant? You cannot draw a moral equivalency between the actions of the oppressive majority and the oppressed minority. Those with power have the responsibility to use that power properly.

Of course, I blame physics for all of this. Fuck you, light speed barrier. Fuck you. You ruined everything.

[Alleya]

I was wondering when the religion bashing would appear again. BG did not disappoint. I haven't read the whole thread in a while, didn't we already have a religion bashing circle jerk in here?

General observation, not necessarily related to but inspired by this statement.

The last two years or so, whenever I've bothered to engage in a religion debate on BG (in a serious and not-ironic/sarcastic way), I've always noticed one thing: the comments I make, which are generally lucid, free of undue vitriol, and at least (I think) a little thought provoking, are universally ignored except by people who already agree with me. Somehow, the defenders of religion always seem to miss my comments, and go straight for the sensational/audacious comments other people make, or default back to complaining about how everyone's just "bashing" religion.

[Yuri-G]

General observation, not necessarily related to but inspired by this statement.

The last two years or so, whenever I've bothered to engage in a religion debate on BG (in a serious and not-ironic/sarcastic way), I've always noticed one thing: the comments I make, which are generally lucid, free of undue vitriol, and at least (I think) a little thought provoking, are universally ignored except by people who already agree with me. Somehow, the defenders of religion always seem to miss my comments, and go straight for the sensational/audacious comments other people make, or default back to complaining about how everyone's just "bashing" religion.

this. INFINITELY this. it is rare that someone responds to a thoughtful, well-written comment that is free of vitriol, or at least it seems that way.

[archibaldcrane]

Late, but I love the "I don't want to deny civil rights for gays, but I just don't think they should use the word 'marriage', so I'll vote against it." argument.

Even if you can grant some credence for the "definition of marriage" argument, you're quite literally putting semantics above civil rights. It's incredible that people engage in mental gymnastics to that degree.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[BaneTheBrawler]

You really think you're going to be able to point out good qualities of religion as a general entity in a room full of secular humanists?

You really think that the balance of power is irrelevant? You cannot draw a moral equivalency between the actions of the oppressive majority and the oppressed minority. Those with power have the responsibility to use that power properly.

It's not even about the good qualities, its about people complaining about hate while expressing how much they hate people. Also, re: bolded: Either we're all held to the same standard, or everyone gets to choose their own standards. If everyone gets to pick, it leads to anarchy.

Also, Alleya, that's because you're not bashing. I didn't say everyone was bashing.

[Cleverness]

And this is why putting civil rights issues up to a popular vote is a stupid idea and should never happen.

[Yugl]

I'll end up voting for the proposition if I return to MD by the the time (if) the bill goes public, but it's utterly retarded that people called out Lenus because his decision was based on emotion. It was pointed out by Darus Grey and GG in another thread, so I'm not compelled to reiterate, but the rules of logic will not get you anywhere unless you have premise to execute the rules upon. Those premise are ultimately going to be biological or 'felt' regardless.

[Yuri-G]

there is nothing retarded about calling out someone for denying a group of people their civil rights because he feels icky when he thinks about them.

[ronin sparthos]

I'll end up voting for the proposition if I return to MD by the the time (if) the bill goes public, but it's utterly retarded that people called out Lenus because his decision was based on emotion. It was pointed out by Darus Grey and GG in another thread, so I'm not compelled to reiterate, but the rules of logic will not get you anywhere unless you have premise to execute the rules upon. Those premise are ultimately going to be biological or 'felt' regardless.

Can I call him out on using his religious belief to tier different groups of people then? Because that's what the "emotion" is.

[Yugl]

there is nothing retarded about calling out someone for denying a group of people their civil rights because he feels icky when he thinks about them.

It is because biology/'feeling' is ultimately what logical rules operate upon. It comes down to the game of 'why'. Murder is bad. Why? Because people are hurt. Why is people being hurt bad? Because Blah > why > because blah > why > because blah. Anyone who has taken a logic course and payed the slightest bit of attention will understand that logic runs into an infinite loop (Especially if one begins to question why the rules of logic themselves). You cannot derive normative values without such biology/feeling. That applies to you as much as it applies to him. Applying additional justifications (All derived from biology/feeling) only circumvents you into believing you're more rational because of biology (Ironically) much like how we have come to believe that repeated events mandate the instantiation of that event in the future. It's a useful survival tool, but it is not deductive; thus, not entirely justified.

Can I call him out on using his religious belief to tier different groups of people then? Because that's what the "emotion" is.

I won't pretend to understand his position in its entirety (Partially because the post was poorly written), but it seems his problem was semantic rather than theoretical. His dilemma, it seems, is that he regards male-female as the definition of marriage. Analogously, we would find it contradictory to call a female a bachelor. Nothing of hierarchy stems from this alone. It is when people use this distinction to abuse our legal codes that it becomes a problem. Who gives a fuck whether you call it marriage, balala, or cool-ceremony-bro if it's the same damn ceremony/legal status in every way? The moment the fight becomes what we call the marriage is the moment I cease to give a fuck.

[Lucavi]

Also, Alleya, that's because you're not bashing. I didn't say everyone was bashing.

You're not winning any points there. You've essentially reinforced her point: no religious-sided poster ever responds to her vitroll-free posts, because they have no counter-points to her points. The only time the hardcore religious posters come out and play is at the beginning of a thread and when they begin to feel pressured by the secular crowd.

[Cleverness]

Oh are we still pretending Alleya is a girl

[Lucavi]

Damned if I know/care. Brains is brains.

[Siatdiat]

Oh, okay. For some reason I thought you were defending religion in that statement, looks like I was mistaken.

What I had meant in my initial post you quoted is that culture advances with or without religion. Whatever any asshole tries to say about the modern era, shit is generally much better now than it was 100 years ago, and that has nothing to do with the church. This is evident in the amount of change that has gone on within the religious communities of the world to keep up with the evil secularists. It is entirely disrespectul to me when religion tries to leech onto things that REAL PEOPLE have done to improve the world, and say that it was all god. He was just waiting 3000 years for the right moment to use that person in such a way to advance his true design for the world. It's true I'm bashing religion, and I won't apologize since I find religious doctrine and idealogy to be dangerous to all humans.

You going to make it to the reason rally on the 24th?

[Yuri-G]

"It is entirely disrespectul to me when religion tries to leech onto things that REAL PEOPLE have done to improve the world"

^ and this is why the phrase "judeo-christian morals" makes me /rageface so fucking hard. like, if I choose not to murder people, it's because of Christianity? fuck that. fuck it so hard.

[BaneTheBrawler]

You're not winning any points there. You've essentially reinforced her point: no religious-sided poster ever responds to her vitroll-free posts, because they have no counter-points to her points. The only time the hardcore religious posters come out and play is at the beginning of a thread and when they begin to feel pressured by the secular crowd.

And you're making my point, which is that some members of BG have hypocritical views about religion that they often express with great anger, and I find it annoying that no one calls them out on their blatant hypocrisy just because they happen to be talking about religion. I read Alleya's posts and move on, because I have no objections and nothing to add to them. I suppose I could continually quote him and say "yeah!" and other inane shit, but I guess I'm just not in the mood. Sorry?

I should also point out that my own posts have been as neutral as I can make them while still making the point. And really, my point is quite morally bland. "Don't be a hypocrite" is hardly ground-breaking stuff.

Also,

hardcore

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Lucavi]

I'm sorry; you're going to have to do a better job clarifying what you're considering to be hypocritical here. All I hear is one side chastising the other side about basing their opinions on something as crucial as a matter of civil rights as "gut feelings" and "words that have always meant X thing".

[Jefe]

if you have cast a single vote against gay marriage or have even inspired someone else to do so, whether through your actions or words, then you are not only homophobic but you have had a measurable negative impact on the homosexual community. the idea that holding a negative belief toward a group of people is perfectly acceptable is harmful in and of itself.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Keep assuming shit tho.

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

[Mazmaz]

the idea that holding a negative belief toward a group of people is perfectly acceptable is harmful in and of itself.

ummm
KKK
Westboro Baptist Church
etc.
?

[BaneTheBrawler]

trolololol

ftfy