NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, it's going to be part apology, part something else. Apology first.

I apologise for trolling with my lovely puppet HerPower. I wanted to express some extreme opinions on feminism I am quite familiar with, yet do no support (except in the deepest, darkest, most evil corners of my reptilian brain), but I didn't want people to think that I myself champion those sorts of beliefs. I guess I should have just waited until a real HerPower came along to bring some of these things up, but I got antsy and figured I'd conjure her up myself. In any case, sorry. I got spanked for it, and on further reflection, I'm okay with that. It was deserved.

Now for the second part:

Do you hold some extreme opinions that you don't necessarily FULLY support, but can't help thinking about sometimes? Do you refrain, in the interests of reasonableness (and to not ruin your reputation) to NOT express those opinions here? What are those ideas?

Like I said, I used HerPower to bring up some arguments I've heard, but do not necessarily agree with. However, the reaction to those arguements was fantastic. Ideas I've kind of toyed with, but hadn't really examined (vasectomies for all men, for one:)) suddenly got VERY examined, and banished them from my thoughts all together. In fact, it was rather like a good sweeping of the darkened corners of my mind...all those extreme opinions I'd never really looked at too hard disappeared with a flash once they were touched by the light of reason:).

Perhaps we should sweep ALL our minds of these dirty little thoughts...let others shed some light on them and render them impotent! (no pun intended)

One of my extreme ideas that comes up every time I hear of a child being hurt or molested:

The family should be able to enact their revenge on the person who hurts their children.

I don't support that really...though in my culture this would have been a real punishment we supported. I abhore violence, but ever once in a while I consider this solution...

Help me banish it! Offer some sane alternatives!

I suspected as much

:eek: I'm sorry i was mean to you then

wow- I have no F-ing clue that you were HerPower! You are a master at disguise!


*shocked*

I suspected as much
Suspected that HerPower was I? Well, Cog unmasked me in the Jesussaves vs HerPower thread already.

:eek: I'm sorry i was mean to you then
You weren't mean to me. You were mean to a horrible bigot, and had she been real, I probably would have been too!

Suspected that HerPower was I? Well, Cog unmasked me in the Jesussaves vs HerPower thread already.
Didn't read it. There's sillyness and sillyness.

Do you hold some extreme opinions that you don't necessarily FULLY support, but can't help thinking about sometimes? Do you refrain, in the interests of reasonableness (and to not ruin your reputation) to NOT express those opinions here? What are those ideas?
Although there are many who beg to differ, I do not hold any "extreme opinions." The opinions I hold are based on almost 62 years of living, most of it pretty damned close to the edge. I don't hold back, either on here or elsewhere. If you don't want my opinion on something ... tough. If you don't like the opinions I express, don't listen to or read them. :D

wow- I have no F-ing clue that you were HerPower! You are a master at disguise!


*shocked*
I was really getting into the role...but I agree that if we let people express their extreme semi-opinions through puppets, we'd be swamped with fakes. I don't think that would be a forum I'd enjoy for too long past the initial rush:).

You weren't mean to me. You were mean to a horrible bigot, and had she been real, I probably would have been too!
so is there really people who spell women as womyn, etc?

Although there are many who beg to differ, I do not hold any "extreme opinions." The opinions I hold are based on almost 62 years of living, most of it pretty damned close to the edge. I don't hold back, either on here or elsewhere. If you don't want my opinion on something ... tough. If you don't like the opinions I express, don't listen to or read them. :D
Maybe extreme isn't a good descriptor...after all, one person's extreme is another's everyday...

Let's say, opinions you haven't really examined or that don't gell with the rest of your philosophy.

Well, it's going to be part apology, part something else. Apology first.

I apologise for trolling with my lovely puppet HerPower. I wanted to express some extreme opinions on feminism I am quite familiar with, yet do no support (except in the deepest, darkest, most evil corners of my reptilian brain), but I didn't want people to think that I myself champion those sorts of beliefs. I guess I should have just waited until a real HerPower came along to bring some of these things up, but I got antsy and figured I'd conjure her up myself. In any case, sorry. I got spanked for it, and on further reflection, I'm okay with that. It was deserved.

Now for the second part:

Do you hold some extreme opinions that you don't necessarily FULLY support, but can't help thinking about sometimes? Do you refrain, in the interests of reasonableness (and to not ruin your reputation) to NOT express those opinions here? What are those ideas?

Like I said, I used HerPower to bring up some arguments I've heard, but do not necessarily agree with. However, the reaction to those arguements was fantastic. Ideas I've kind of toyed with, but hadn't really examined (vasectomies for all men, for one:)) suddenly got VERY examined, and banished them from my thoughts all together. In fact, it was rather like a good sweeping of the darkened corners of my mind...all those extreme opinions I'd never really looked at too hard disappeared with a flash once they were touched by the light of reason:).

Perhaps we should sweep ALL our minds of these dirty little thoughts...let others shed some light on them and render them impotent! (no pun intended)
Don't appologize! If you appologize the terrorists uh, I mean mods win.
BTW, you have a TG, sinuhue.

Maybe extreme isn't a good descriptor...after all, one person's extreme is another's everyday...

Let's say, opinions you haven't really examined or that don't gell with the rest of your philosophy.
Any apparent contradictions between any of my opinions are just that ... "apparent." :D

so is there really people who spell women as womyn, etc?
Yup. HerPower was based on one of my two godmothers, who was (and still is, albeit to a lesser extent) a rabid feminist and lesbian. And a man-hater (which bears mentioning because not all lesbians are). She finally couldn't stand that my mom would choose to continue to be married to a man and she cut all ties with us:(. Her views were extreme, but it was based in a lot of pain, and some of her points were valid, just not expressed well.

Now for the second part:

Do you hold some extreme opinions that you don't necessarily FULLY support, but can't help thinking about sometimes? Do you refrain, in the interests of reasonableness (and to not ruin your reputation) to NOT express those opinions here? What are those ideas?



Yeah, I do - the compulsory abortion of any and all handicapped fetuses. I know that this is totally abhorrent, but I believe that evolution of the human race has been prevented by 'dilution of the gene pool' as I have heard someone put it. This is pretty much identical to the Nazi's pursuit of eugenics to try to bring about a 'perfect race'. If evolution were to take its natural course, these children would not survive for very long, if at all, in the real world. And by real world, I mean the real real world, not the real world that humanity has created.
If an animal, say a fox, is born with some deficiency, say it's lame in one of its legs, it would not be able to hunt, and this would mean that it dies of starvation, thus eliminating it from the 'gene pool'. If a human baby is born with a damaged leg, it will still be able to survive because of modern society.
Even worse, I have a cousin with severe Down's Syndrome. She's 23, and I think she's great. Yet I still hold these views, somewhere in the dark corners of my mind.

I...I...am, sometimes, against the lax immigration policies of Canada.

*shudders*

Yup. HerPower was based on one of my two godmothers, who was (and still is, albeit to a lesser extent) rabid feminist and lesbian. And a man-hater (which bears mentioning because not all lesbians are). She finally couldn't stand that my mom would choose to continue to be married to a man and she cut all ties with us:(. Her views were extreme, but it was based in a lot of pain, and some of her points were valid, just not expressed well.
I knew that had to be a man hating lesbian!

Don't appologize! If you appologize the terrorists uh, I mean mods win.
BTW, you have a TG, sinuhue.
Ah, its their rules. If I don't want to follow them, I don't need to stay. This isn't a rule I particularly feel strong enough about to protest:). You have a TG too. *smooch*

You still haven't made me my sandwhich yet.

J/k :D

I absolutely hate organized religion, and sometimes faith in general. I have long felt that it is a horrible waste of resources and time, and that the elimination of it would be of extreme benefit to mankind.

It conflicts with my belief in the absolute rights of a person to believe and behave in their own ways, but if given the power, I can't say that I would not fight against religion.

You still haven't made me my sandwhich yet.

J/k :D

I think Sanctaphrax and I have some sandwiches coming too.

I apologise for trolling with my lovely puppet HerPower.

Congratulations. I was unsure whether she was actually a puppet or not, and my suspicions as to who would have been pulling her strings if she was one were pointed elsewhere. Would you be offended if I said I found the ideas expressed by HP more interesting than those expressed by you?

Yeah, I do - the compulsory abortion of any and all handicapped fetuses. I know that this is totally abhorrent, but I believe that evolution of the human race has been prevented by 'dilution of the gene pool' as I have heard someone put it. This is pretty much identical to the Nazi's pursuit of eugenics to try to bring about a 'perfect race'. If evolution were to take its natural course, these children would not survive for very long, if at all, in the real world. And by real world, I mean the real real world, not the real world that humanity has created.
If an animal, say a fox, is born with some deficiency, say it's lame in one of its legs, it would not be able to hunt, and this would mean that it dies of starvation, thus eliminating it from the 'gene pool'. If a human baby is born with a damaged leg, it will still be able to survive because of modern society.
Even worse, I have a cousin with severe Down's Syndrome. She's 23, and I think she's great. Yet I still hold these views, somewhere in the dark corners of my mind.
That's a pretty good example. I've thought about it too, but it is so abhorrent to the rest of my thinking that I can't stand to examine it too much. It does worry me that we seem to be going against evolution and actually getting weaker...I wear glasses for one, and I wouldn't have survived long in the bad old days before eye correction was possible. I think we are letting a lot of weaknesses into our species that would not have survived before, but at least in the west we have the technology to work around that. I always think though...what if something terrible happened and that technology no longer existed...I'd be a goner once my glasses broke:).

It is a terrible thought, and people take it to extremes and say we should use eugenics to wipe out different races too. That is why I don't like to examine it too closely, but it does gnaw at me sometimes when I least expect it. Especially when I think about having a deformed or handicapped child...I like to think I could handle it, but I'm not so sure.

So you're not alone in this. I hate that I have these thoughts, but at least they don't form a part of our true belief systems!

I...I...am, sometimes, against the lax immigration policies of Canada.

*shudders*
Ouch. Yeah, I find myself complaining about drug lords who get in no problem, but on the other hand, perfectly law-abiding people like my friend's Albanian husband can hardly get in. I guess I just remind myself that it isn't that they are lax...they are just stupid and poorly organised. They need to be reviewed to let in people who DESERVE to be here...not just those who have tonnes of drug money to buy their way in!

I knew that had to be a man hating lesbian!
I actually managed to not be quite as man-hating as she was...and yet for all that she was still a good person (as long as you were female...). Just be glad she never gained political power:)!

You still haven't made me my sandwhich yet.

J/k :D
The only one getting a sandwich (and a beer) from me is Drunk Commies:).

He might not want it though...my sandwiches involve flax oil and brussel sprouts...

I absolutely hate organized religion, and sometimes faith in general. I have long felt that it is a horrible waste of resources and time, and that the elimination of it would be of extreme benefit to mankind.

It conflicts with my belief in the absolute rights of a person to believe and behave in their own ways, but if given the power, I can't say that I would not fight against religion.
Another one I agree with! My husband is the extreme of religion-haters, and expresses it constantly. I think it, but keep my mouth shut and try to respect other's beliefs. I have to actively fight my impulse to think less of someone who is religious. It's terribly bigoted of me, and I fight it because it shames me:(.

Hmm. I can't really think of a great deal here. There's mostly only one thing that's a bit extreme in many people's eyes.
I support improving the human condition through science, but sometimes in a bit more of an extreme way than others. I am very interested in these latest innovations with artificial limbs and trying to interface a computer with the human brain because, well, that is one of the frontiers of science that seems most promising. But I don't feel this sort of thing must be reserved for only those that have lost function of a limb due to some other cause. Once these prosthesis pass human limbs' level of strength and dexterity, why not give everybody the ability to use them? I've never thought about it much, but it seems that most people I speak to about this sort of stuff find it abhorrent to have a fusion of flesh and machinery like that. But I don't feel it is wrong at all. If I could have limbs that were stronger and less fragile, I would do it. If they could give people access to all the information in the world through a computer-controlled tap into the brain, I would be there. Luckily, this is not the time period in which they can do those sorts of things, because it's not so much myself becoming more powerful that I am interested in as learning to create. I've always beeen more interested in creating these things, not for myself, but for others. Of course, that makes me some sort of horrid monster in many people's eyes. Funny thing is, to me it doesn't seem extreme at all, it seems like a natural extension of science into the inprovement of daily life for people the world over.

Again, it's a good thing it's not the future. I'd probably end up like Dr. Trintignant (hmm, I wonder if anybody wil actually pick up the reference?)

Congratulations. I was unsure whether she was actually a puppet or not, and my suspicions as to who would have been pulling her strings if she was one were pointed elsewhere. Would you be offended if I said I found the ideas expressed by HP more interesting than those expressed by you?
No offense taken. If it's any consolation, like I said, some of those ideas have been kind of held by me in the back reaches of my mind, though I would never express them in public. It was nice to do so for a change. I have to say though that 'her' ideas ALSO interested me...it got me thinking about things a bit differently for a while, and I'm not sure how that worked since we were the same person...I got a little TOO far into the role playing...

That being said, I think we've had the most vigorous discussion about feminism I've yet seen here because of her views. She interested me more than I do too!

No offense taken. If it's any consolation, like I said, some of those ideas have been kind of held by me in the back reaches of my mind, though I would never express them in public.

...

That being said, I think we've had the most vigorous discussion about feminism I've yet seen here because of her views. She interested me more than I do too!

You had the daringly radical ideas of the 70s feminists, but failed to follow through with their actually pretty acute logical self-analysis (aside from various dogmas and confusions such as 'matriarchy is an inherently good thing' and 'male human nature is fixed but female human nature is unfixed').

But hey, maybe I'm biased, because I still think The SCUM Manifesto (which is neither 70s feminism nor an examplar of self-critical analysis) is still a rollicking good read and should be forced onto young boys in the midst of the throes of puberty.

:eek: Sinuhue was HerPower!

lmao nice one Sinuhue :p

I'd probably end up like Dr. Trintignant (hmm, I wonder if anybody wil actually pick up the reference?)
Not me:(

Another one I agree with! My husband is the extreme of religion-haters, and expresses it constantly. I think it, but keep my mouth shut and try to respect other's beliefs. I have to actively fight my impulse to think less of someone who is religious. It's terribly bigoted of me, and I fight it because it shames me:(.

Don't be ashamed, and don't feel like it is bigoted. Religion and its followers deserve whatever they get for the shit they have caused in the past.

And if you ask me, most of them would be perfectly willing to commit more atrocities if something or somebody riled their paranoia again.

You had the daringly radical ideas of the 70s feminists, but failed to follow through with their actually pretty acute logical self-analysis (aside from various dogmas and confusions such as 'matriarchy is an inherently good thing' and 'male human nature is fixed but female human nature is unfixed').

But hey, maybe I'm biased, because I still think The SCUM Manifesto (which is neither 70s feminism nor an examplar of self-critical analysis) is still a rollicking good read and should be forced onto young boys in the midst of the throes of puberty.Hahahaha...I was working myself into a self-anaylsis...I was going to be a bit more serious today but I got deleted first:(

The SCUM Manifesto is hilarious...I was SOOO tempted to start quoting it but I thought that might tip my hand and make it too obvious I was trolling...

Don't be ashamed, and don't feel like it is bigoted. Religion and its followers deserve whatever they get for the shit they have caused in the past.

And if you ask me, most of them would be perfectly willing to commit more atrocities if something or somebody riled their paranoia again.
I agree...but I can't blame everyone who holds a faith for the atrocities of extremists. It would be like blaming all feminist for HerPower:), or all white males for colonialisation. Some people use their faith to try and improve things...the first time I really saw that was back in student politics when I got involved with the Jubilee movement. They were faith-based, but they were the ONLY ONES really DOING anything concrete in my area. That was tough, because I just couldn't stomach the religious aspect, but they got way better results than many secular NGOs.

Don't be ashamed, and don't feel like it is bigoted. Religion and its followers deserve whatever they get for the shit they have caused in the past.

And if you ask me, most of them would be perfectly willing to commit more atrocities if something or somebody riled their paranoia again.

The problem here isn't really religion as such, but dogmatic ideologies and those that follow them - after all a good argument can be made for secular belief systems having caused more deaths and sufferings than religions.

When you come down to it more deaths are probably attributable to statist authoritarian communism than to Christianity or Islam.

Some people use their faith to try and improve things...the first time I really saw that was back in student politics when I got involved with the Jubilee movement. They were faith-based, but they were the ONLY ONES really DOING anything concrete in my area. That was tough, because I just couldn't stomach the religious aspect, but they got way better results than many secular NGOs.

Similarly, despite my pretty strong anti-religious views I do have a lot of time and respect for groups such as the Quakers, and to a lesser extent the old branches of the liberation theology movement.

The problem here isn't really religion as such, but dogmatic ideologies and those that follow them - after all a good argument can be made for secular belief systems having caused more deaths and sufferings than religions.

When you come down to it more deaths are probably attributable to statist authoritarian communism than to Christianity or Islam.
Frankly, I see a real parallel between fascist cults of personality, 'communist' dictatorships and organised religion. Any sort of dogma that is forced on people tends to have its zealots and fantatics and can be capable of great evil. Both are bad.

Similarly, despite my pretty strong anti-religious views I do have a lot of time and respect for groups such as the Quakers, and to a lesser extent the old branches of the liberation theology movement.
Me too...it's scary! Same with the Hutterites and Mennonites, because of their communal living...I'd go join them if it weren't for the religion. The Quakers to me are very interesting, since I am becoming more and more staunchly pacifist (not passive, not weak, anti-violence) with age. Again...I could do without the preachiness though...

The problem here isn't really religion as such, but dogmatic ideologies and those that follow them - after all a good argument can be made for secular belief systems having caused more deaths and sufferings than religions.

When you come down to it more deaths are probably attributable to statist authoritarian communism than to Christianity or Islam.

I have no pity for the fate of people who believe in authoritarian governments either. But I would say that many, many more people have died due to religion than a lack of it.

I would even go so far to say that my distaste for most religions is the authoritarian nature of them. I see no freedom in religion and therefore I cannot accept it as being viable.

I agree...but I can't blame everyone who holds a faith for the atrocities of extremists. It would be like blaming all feminist for HerPower:), or all white males for colonialisation. Some people use their faith to try and improve things...the first time I really saw that was back in student politics when I got involved with the Jubilee movement. They were faith-based, but they were the ONLY ONES really DOING anything concrete in my area. That was tough, because I just couldn't stomach the religious aspect, but they got way better results than many secular NGOs.

Their reasons and ultimate goals for their actions were most likely faulty.

Their reasons and ultimate goals for their actions were most likely faulty.
The Jubilee group you mean? Maybe...I can't really say. But they did get results...so which is better, a group with noble intentions who acheive nothing, or a group with questionable intentions that acheive much?

I'm torn on that.

Similarly, despite my pretty strong anti-religious views I do have a lot of time and respect for groups such as the Quakers, and to a lesser extent the old branches of the liberation theology movement.

The Quakers were a very progressive people in the past, but in the end they accept a belief that the majority of the population will spend most of their existence in terrible anguish. Can you find any moral justification in that?

The Jubilee group you mean? Maybe...I can't really say. But they did get results...so which is better, a group with noble intentions who acheive nothing, or a group with questionable intentions that acheive much?

I'm torn on that.

I cannot speak for this group so I am overstepping my bounds so far.

What did they accomplish, and for whom?

The Quakers were a very progressive people in the past, but in the end they accept a belief that the majority of the population will spend most of their existence in terrible anguish. Can you find any moral justification in that?

When I see them out actively protesting such injustices as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq my concern is elsewhere.

I cannot speak for this group so I am overstepping my bounds so far.

What did they accomplish, and for whom?
They focused a lot on debt relief when I was around them. http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/
US site: http://www.jubileeusa.org/

At the G-8 summit last June, world leaders considered for the first time a proposal that would provide 100% multilateral debt cancellation for impoverished nations.
They are at least getting the issue on the table, and have massive worldwide support.

Here are some Jubilee success stories: http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi?path=learn_more&page=SuccessStories.html

Now of course, it wasn't just this group that was working for debt relief, but they were by far one of the most organised.

When I see them out actively protesting such injustices as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq my concern is elsewhere.

I still have no respect for their beliefs, and they would be protesting the war without their religion.

They focused a lot on debt relief when I was around them. http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/
US site: http://www.jubileeusa.org/


They are at least getting the issue on the table, and have massive worldwide support.

Here are some Jubilee success stories: http://www.jubileeusa.org/jubilee.cgi?path=learn_more&page=SuccessStories.html

Now of course, it wasn't just this group that was working for debt relief, but they were by far one of the most organised.

I certainly have respect for them and their actions, but I still have no respect for their faith.

Sinahue, that may have been one of the most annoying acts I've seen committed on NS.

But, what else should I expect from a militant, moderate schizoid?

Again, it's a good thing it's not the future. I'd probably end up like Dr. Trintignant (hmm, I wonder if anybody wil actually pick up the reference?)
Yep. I would be a mix of Trintignant and Childe.

I still have no respect for their beliefs, and they would be protesting the war without their religion.

I have experience of them out protesting the war and aiding other non-religious protestors in attempts to disrupt the machinery of the war (such as the Bush/Blair meetings held at Hillsborough), as to whether this is an extention of their religious beliefs that they feel obligated to pursue, or if it is a case that people with such anti-war beliefs are drawn to the quakers if pretty much impossible to determine. It should also be borne in mind that I am resident in Northern Ireland and here the Quakers are involved in attempts at conflict resolution and management - which at present (aside from general economic underdevelopment which is a result of the conflict) and so this may be atypical compared to other societies around the world.

Sinahue, that may have been one of the most annoying acts I've seen committed on NS.

But, what else should I expect from a militant, moderate schizoid?
You must not have been here long if you think that was THE most annoying things you've seen...

...and I'm not sure you're joking on that last comment?

I certainly have respect for them and their actions, but I still have no respect for their faith.
Fair enough. Me neither. Though I will tolerate their faith.

wow, i had no idea

I have experience of them out protesting the war and aiding other non-religious protestors in attempts to disrupt the machinery of the war (such as the Bush/Blair meetings held at Hillsborough), as to whether this is an extention of their religious beliefs that they feel obligated to pursue, or if it is a case that people with such anti-war beliefs are drawn to the quakers if pretty much impossible to determine. It should also be borne in mind that I am resident in Northern Ireland and here the Quakers are involved in attempts at conflict resolution and management - which at present (aside from general economic underdevelopment which is a result of the conflict) and so this may be atypical compared to other societies around the world.

I think religion has amply shown that it is not motive enough to deter violence. Any tendency for or against violence must be a personal belief separate of religion. Religion only manages to provide justification for people to commit violence, and tends to cause people to submit to violent solutions.

Fair enough. Me neither. Though I will tolerate their faith.

I can hardly stomach tolerating it. But it is all in the social contract or whatever.

You must not have been here long if you think that was THE most annoying things you've seen...

...and I'm not sure you're joking on that last comment?
Not "THE" most annoying rant I've seen, but definitely one of them.

And no, I wasn't joking. You have only reaffirmed my belief that most feminists are really just pseudointellectual, angry whackjob bitches who need to get laid more often.

Or at least, behind their "No really, I'm the nicer, gentler, man-loving kind of feminist!" facade, there's usually a militant nutcase lurking, ready to castrate.

Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Not "THE" most annoying rant I've seen, but definitely one of them.

And no, I wasn't joking. You have only reaffirmed my belief that most feminists are really just pseudointellectual, angry whackjob bitches who need to get laid more often.

Or at least, behind their "No really, I'm the nicer, gentler, man-loving kind of feminist!" facade, there's usually a militant nutcase lurking, ready to castrate.

Wolves in sheep's clothing.
Wow...thanks for spewing forth that bile. And for totally getting me wrong. Well, that's your prerogative.

Not "THE" most annoying rant I've seen, but definitely one of them.

And no, I wasn't joking. You have only reaffirmed my belief that most feminists are really just pseudointellectual, angry whackjob bitches who need to get laid more often.

Or at least, behind their "No really, I'm the nicer, gentler, man-loving kind of feminist!", there's usually a nutcase lurking, ready to castrate.

Wolves in sheep's clothing.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, watch it. Maybe a little more tact next time.

As for the HerPower/Sinuhue link, I had my suspicions. Personally, when I thought about it, I thought the only person on here who could pull off that troll would be Sinuhue, since she was certainly liberal and certainly had a thing for Jesussaves.

As for just Sinuhue, I would hope that she is too rational to actually espouse those beliefs. I would also hope that those aren't deep seeded beliefs that are just waiting to get out.

I think 'feminism' is such a vague term. How many people call themselves 100% feminist?

Wow...thanks for spewing forth that bile.
Just thought I'd return the favor, since I had to read through pages of your alternate personality's political vomit.
And for totally getting me wrong. Well, that's your prerogative.
Look, I'd have the same amount of skepticism for a "nicer, gentler Christian" who went Jesussaves on everybody under an alias.
Those comments you made came from somewhere, and even you admitted that these thoughts haunt you from time to time.
So at least admit it, half of you is moderate and reasonable, and the other half is a militant bitch.

I'd respect either, as long as they were honest and up front about it.

That's my prerogative.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, watch it. Maybe a little more tact next time.

As for the HerPower/Sinuhue link, I had my suspicions. Personally, when I thought about it, I thought the only person on here who could pull off that troll would be Sinuhue, since she was certainly liberal and certainly had a thing for Jesussaves.

He is *sigh* my ultimate fantasy man... :D
As for just Sinuhue, I would hope that she is too rational to actually espouse those beliefs. I would also hope that those aren't deep seeded beliefs that are just waiting to get out.
Na. I'm much too reasonable, and fond of men in general to be HerPower in secret. They are the dark and extreme version of my beliefs...much as the Inquisition was the dark and extreme version of Catholicism. I fight these extreme views almost more than I fight their polar opposite (misogyny) because they are so antithetical to my belief system.

So at least admit it, half of you is moderate and reasonable, and the other half is a militant bitch.

I'd respect either, as long as they were honest and up front about it.

That's my prerogative.
Half and half? Hardly.

Yes, those ideas came from somewhere, but I've already explained that (godmother and all). Many people already paint ALL feminists with a HerPower brush, and I thought it'd be a good idea to show what a REAL feminazi can look like so that those people could see there IS a difference between that and real feminism. You go ahead and analyse it to your heart's content...sometimes a spade is just a spade.

My current deep, dark secret is that I was all geared up to defend HerPower if she appeared again while I was online. Though I disagreed with the views expressed by her, given some of the other opinions expresed on this board, I found the way everyone piled in to her rather distasteful. Especially since it seemed largely based on spelling.

How foolish would I have looked? :eek:

I think 'feminism' is such a vague term. How many people call themselves 100% feminist?
All names are necesarily vague and up for interpretation. I'd call myself 100% feminist, but that would cause problems when I also wanted to call myself 50% Cree and 50% Irish because the percentages just wouldn't add up then:).

Just thought I'd return the favor, since I had to read through pages of your alternate personality's political vomit.


And by the way...no, no you didn't.

My current deep, dark secret is that I was all geared up to defend HerPower if she appeared again while I was online. Though I disagreed with the views expressed by her, given some of the other opinions expresed on this board, I found the way everyone piled in to her rather distasteful. Especially since it seemed largely based on spelling.

How foolish would I have looked? :eek:
Well, had she been real, I probably would've done the same...some of the comments made toward her were pretty out of line. People tend to get too personal when they come across ridiculous viewpoints. Pointing out their flaws should be enough.

Then again, with such EXTREME views, it can strain a person's restraint to no end...and we all slip from time to time!

And by the way...no, no you didn't.

That is what I don't get. People lash out so much against trolls like HerPower and Jesussaves, but if they ignored them they wouldn't exist.

It is just another form of censorship and I really wish it wouldn't go on here.

Sin... how could you! I thought you loved me! But you were mean to me when you were HerPower! *sniff* :(

(oh well, I was mean to you too - no harm done!) :p ;)

Sin... how could you! I thought you loved me! But you were mean to me when you were HerPower! *sniff* :(

(oh well, I was mean to you too - no harm done!) :p ;)
I just wasn't myself...and I tried to make up for it as Sinuhue in the "say something nice thread":).

That is what I don't get. People lash out so much against trolls like HerPower and Jesussaves, but if they ignored them they wouldn't exist.

It is just another form of censorship and I really wish it wouldn't go on here.
Yeah, I've learned to avoid the extreme and unreasonable personalities on NS (after getting spanked once for taking it too far against one of them). Some are willing to talk rationally (I wish that white power thread could have gotten more real responses), but if they aren't, why bother discussing anything with them?

I just wasn't myself...and I tried to make up for it as Sinuhue in the "say something nice thread":).
Its ok, I forgive you :)

Im good like that, I forgive people. ;)

This certainly makes a person wonder how much of what anyone on here says is true. It makes you question how many people here might just be puppets of other people.

I think religion has amply shown that it is not motive enough to deter violence. Any tendency for or against violence must be a personal belief separate of religion. Religion only manages to provide justification for people to commit violence, and tends to cause people to submit to violent solutions.

Don't you think it's equally likely that people will submit to nonviolent solutions or find justification to prevent violence in the name of religion or are you one of those people that starts with the premise that you are against something so you only see the bad things about it?

Its ok, I forgive you :)

Im good like that, I forgive people. ;)

Then I must say that you are a wonderful person, LM. Not everyone can find it in their heart to forgive. I'm like that, too, but, I have family members and friends that could hold a grudge forever. What a waste!

This certainly makes a person wonder how much of what anyone on here says is true. It makes you question how many people here might just be puppets of other people.
Sdaeriji is JESUSSAVES!!! *gasp*

(j/k!) I have only one puppet now, but Im brutally honest all of the time. I never lie. :)

Then I must say that you are a wonderful person, LM. Not everyone can find it in their heart to forgive. I'm like that, too, but, I have family members and friends that could hold a grudge forever. What a waste!
Tell me about it - its heartbreaking - oh well. :)

This certainly makes a person wonder how much of what anyone on here says is true. It makes you question how many people here might just be puppets of other people.
Actually yeah...once I started HerPower that question did jump to mind. Then again, I think the majority of people who engage in reasonable debate do so honestly, and even if they take a position they don't really support, I would say that is playing the Devil's Advocate rather than puppeting. I like to think most of the people I debate with are real.

Sdaeriji is JESUSSAVES!!! *gasp*

(j/k!) I have only one puppet now, but Im brutally honest all of the time. I never lie. :)

Who is your puppet, then?

Actually yeah...once I started HerPower that question did jump to mind. Then again, I think the majority of people who engage in reasonable debate do so honestly, and even if they take a position they don't really support, I would say that is playing the Devil's Advocate rather than puppeting. I like to think most of the people I debate with are real.

Still, it does sort of make you question how many other people currently here are just puppets of other people. Only the moderators really know, I would imagine.

Don't you think it's equally likely that people will submit to nonviolent solutions or find justification to prevent violence in the name of religion or are you one of those people that starts with the premise that you are against something so you only see the bad things about it?
I think Vitt is saying that religion itself isn't ENOUGH to cause people to be non-violent. It might be one of the reasons, but a person's personal belief, regardless of their religion or atheism is what will ultimately decide the issue. They may act in the NAME of a religion (or other belief), but they do so based on a personal philosophy.

Sdaeriji is JESUSSAVES!!! *gasp*

(j/k!) I have only one puppet now, but Im brutally honest all of the time. I never lie. :)
I have a bunch of puppets, but not for forum posting. Except for my RP puppet. But all my debating and conversation happens with this account.

Still, it does sort of make you question how many other people currently here are just puppets of other people. Only the moderators really know, I would imagine.
I suspect only the really extreme view would be puppets. Why have a puppet that only debates marginally different than you really do in life?

I suspect only the really extreme view would be puppets. Why have a puppet that only debates marginally different than you really do in life?

You could have puppets to agree with you.

You could have puppets to agree with you.
Isn't that just intellectual masturbation? Who would feel validated by that?

Let's find out if people use puppets to debate on NS. I'll make an anonymous poll.

Who is your puppet, then?
Who are yours? (He doesnt post often, and hasnt been in for quite a while - but youd know him if you seen him - and ive dropped enough subtle hints while using him that most people have caught on ;))

Who are yours? (He doesnt post often, and hasnt been in for quite a while - but youd know him if you seen him - and ive dropped enough subtle hints while using him that most people have caught on ;))

I don't have any anymore. A long time ago I had Joey Lawrence, but I only posted with that name three or four times.

I think Vitt is saying that religion itself isn't ENOUGH to cause people to be non-violent. It might be one of the reasons, but a person's personal belief, regardless of their religion or atheism is what will ultimately decide the issue. They may act in the NAME of a religion (or other belief), but they do so based on a personal philosophy.

Yes, I get that, but I'm saying that if religion is not enough to cause people to be non-violent, then why is it enough to cause people to be violent? Doesn't it stand to reason that people are who they are and they just use religion or politics or whatever as justification for their actions be they violent, non-violent or pickle-loving?

Yes, I get that, but I'm saying that if religion is not enough to cause people to be non-violent, then why is it enough to cause people to be violent? Doesn't it stand to reason that people are who they are and they just use religion or politics or whatever as justification for their actions be they violent, non-violent or pickle-loving?
Ok. Yes. I agree. Religion alone probably won't make a person violent. It has just been used as a justification soooooo often....and I think for longer than secular ideologies. That may change with the passage of time, however.

Isn't that just intellectual masturbation? Who would feel validated by that?

Schorgenland was famous for it.

Schorgenland was famous for it.
Wow. Weird. Don't you think so?

*Sinuhue puppet* Why yes, yes I do!
*Sinuhue's second puppet* Me too! You are so right Sinuhue!

I am so right! Everyone says so!

Nope, doesn't do it for me. :D

... It wasme!I am the crazy feminist puppet master (mistress?) ...

I hope you will honour the marriage proposals you received as HerPower.

Plus I was right to be suspiscious of your definition of feminism it would seem...

Wow. Weird. Don't you think so?

*Sinuhue puppet* Why yes, yes I do!
*Sinuhue's second puppet* Me too! You are so right Sinuhue!

I am so right! Everyone says so!

Nope, doesn't do it for me. :D

Yeah, but I'm sure people do it. It's a way for a person's argument to seem to have more merit, and it allows someone to gang up on people of the opposing viewpoint.

Isn't that just intellectual masturbation? Who would feel validated by that?
It's really not about feeling validated, it's about making the other people think that there are many others who think you are correct, and therefore doubt themselves. Or at least, that is what I would be attempting to do if I were to use a puppet.

Wow. Weird. Don't you think so?

*Sinuhue puppet* Why yes, yes I do!
*Sinuhue's second puppet* Me too! You are so right Sinuhue!

I am so right! Everyone says so!

Nope, doesn't do it for me. :D

Yeah, but I'm sure people do it. It's a way for a person's argument to seem to have more merit, and it allows someone to gang up on people of the opposing viewpoint.

I wanna be someones puppet! :D

I hope you will honour the marriage proposals you received as HerPower.

Plus I was right to be suspiscious of your definition of feminism it would seem...
Sorry, I'm taken:).

No, not suspicious of MY definition...of HerPower's definition most certainly.

Another multiple post glitch....there must have been a change in the matrix...

Come fix it Sdaeriji! Please:)

Half and half? Hardly.

Yes, those ideas came from somewhere, but I've already explained that (godmother and all). Many people already paint ALL feminists with a HerPower brush, and I thought it'd be a good idea to show what a REAL feminazi can look like so that those people could see there IS a difference between that and real feminism. You go ahead and analyse it to your heart's content...sometimes a spade is just a spade.
Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're not a feminazi.

I don't know anything about you before the whole HerPower fiasco. Let's just say it was a flubbed introduction. You may indeed be a sweetie.
I don't know.

But you can't blame me for thinking you were going a lil' schizo there. I don't have a puppet (besides my E-Family regional name, Eichenland), and I guess I just don't get it.
Seems like the board could fill up entirely with gross political exaggerations and posturing all too quickly if everyone employed this political tactic here.

That's really what bothered me, not so much the rants.

Either way, good wishes, and I hope to get to know the kinder, gentler Sinahue, and let HerPower fade into memory. :)

I'm surprised we haven't met before HerPower actually. I don't know about sweetie, but I DO try awfully hard to be reasonable. So cheers, and see you around!

One of my extreme ideas that comes up every time I hear of a child being hurt or molested:

The family should be able to enact their revenge on the person who hurts their children.

I don't support that really...though in my culture this would have been a real punishment we supported. I abhore violence, but ever once in a while I consider this solution...

Help me banish it! Offer some sane alternatives!

How about more RESPONSIBLE FAMILIES!

I know that not ALL such acts can be avoided, but I believe that MANY of them can.

If you are honest with your children and explain how such things may happen and how to react to such things then they would have a better chance of avoiding them...

Further, some families actually PUT their children in these situations. My sister and myself were abused by a step-Father which was nearly ignored by my Mother, until she actually caught him in the act.

So, while there are things we can do as a Society to become more aware that such things are happening, we first need to place the responsibility where it should be, on those who MAKE the decisions for the children.

Regards,
Gaar

Ok. Yes. I agree. Religion alone probably won't make a person violent. It has just been used as a justification soooooo often....and I think for longer than secular ideologies. That may change with the passage of time, however.

Again, I think that's just choosing to see what you want. While I don't necessarily agree with the following organizations, wouldn't you say the Red Cross, Alcoholics Anonymous (and it's spawn), etc. do a lot of good in the world? Have wars been fought and have people died due to religion? Yes, of course. Have wars been avoided and have people been saved (not in the religious sense) due to religion? Again, the answer is most certainly yes. Which is more prevelant? I don't know and neither do you. You can't just choose to only see one side and expect for your argument to be considered reasonable (I do find you reasonable, by the way). Extreme views can and will always be used to excuse extreme acts for good or ill.

Again, I think that's just choosing to see what you want. While I don't necessarily agree with the following organizations, wouldn't you say the Red Cross, Alcoholics Anonymous (and it's spawn), etc. do a lot of good in the world? Have wars been fought and have people died due to religion? Yes, of course. Have wars been avoided and have people been saved (not in the religious sense) due to religion? Again, the answer is most certainly yes. Which is more prevelant? I don't know and neither do you. You can't just choose to only see one side and expect for your argument to be considered reasonable (I do find you reasonable, by the way). Extreme views can and will always be used to excuse extreme acts for good or ill.

How many wars have been thwarted by religion?

Oh, one more thing, Sinuhue - I volunteer with a group that raises money locally to preserve a historic theater. We perform in murder mysteries around town for parties and such. The great thing about performing in these mysteries is that they are almost entirely improv. You receive a short bio and you make everything else up. So I get to, on occasion, walk around a room and be some extreme version of someone I've encountered in my life. I've played the religious zealot, the country bumpkin, the greedy capitalist, the shady politician, etc. It's a great way to exercise your demons. Also, I get to say insults that I would never say if I was just being myself. I get to use all those jokes in my head that are just too harsh to use against normal people but that are totally acceptable with actors. You should look into something like that.

Don't you think it's equally likely that people will submit to nonviolent solutions or find justification to prevent violence in the name of religion or are you one of those people that starts with the premise that you are against something so you only see the bad things about it?

People are in general non-violent people. Individuals normally are rational and back away from violence. People do not need religion to be non-violent. However, religion has been a leading cause in history for many, many individuals to give up rationality and engage in violent behavior.

How many wars have been thwarted by religion?

Don't ask questions no one can possibly answer? It's far more likely that you're going to know if someone is fighting due to religion v. avoiding a fight due to religion. If I shoot a guy because he's a sinner it's in the paper. If someone rapes my daughter and I want to kill him, but instead I pray on it and choose to follow Thou shalt not kill, you'll never know about it. I'm not religious but I have to defend the good things it brings since people like you will only ascribe bad results to religion.

Don't ask questions no one can possibly answer? It's far more likely that you're going to know if someone is fighting due to religion v. avoiding a fight due to religion. If I shoot a guy because he's a sinner it's in the paper. If someone rapes my daughter and I want to kill him, but instead I pray on it and choose to follow Thou shalt not kill, you'll never know about it. I'm not religious but I have to defend the good things it brings since people like you will only ascribe bad results to religion.

I didn't ask about individual actions, I asked about war. It is much harder to go into the justification of religion in the individual than to talk about the effects religion has had on human society and development.

I feel that probably has less to do with religion/belief in general and more with the side-effect that an organized religion is a big herd of people following a doctrine unquestioningly. When religion causes a war, I suspect that has less to do with the "God" mentality, but more with the "Group" mentality. You see the same in fascist nations. It's like in witch hunts and the inquisition: As a natural survival advantage, most humans try to appear in good light to their leaders (their politicians, their clergy, or their God), and thus will seek to "outdo" each other in terms of faith/loyalty. This causes a "proliferation" of loyalty and suspicion: Anyone who even argues moderation or reason is obviously a dissident or a traitor.

That religion has caused that so often is due to the fact that few other groups have promoted the "unquestioning follower" doctrine as much as the various faiths.

---

To the original topic: Yes, I do have a puppet, but with which I posted only around 3-4 times (I'll be damned if I say who it is). I also have a lot of puppets that have never seen the forum from the inside. Always at the ready if I need them. :D

Oh, one more thing, Sinuhue - I volunteer with a group that raises money locally to preserve a historic theater. We perform in murder mysteries around town for parties and such. The great thing about performing in these mysteries is that they are almost entirely improv. You receive a short bio and you make everything else up. So I get to, on occasion, walk around a room and be some extreme version of someone I've encountered in my life. I've played the religious zealot, the country bumpkin, the greedy capitalist, the shady politician, etc. It's a great way to exercise your demons. Also, I get to say insults that I would never say if I was just being myself. I get to use all those jokes in my head that are just too harsh to use against normal people but that are totally acceptable with actors. You should look into something like that.
That does sound quite interesting! It'll have to wait until my kids are a wee bit older though...spare time doesn't exist for me right now:).

People are in general non-violent people. Individuals normally are rational and back away from violence. People do not need religion to be non-violent. However, religion has been a leading cause in history for many, many individuals to give up rationality and engage in violent behavior.

People are non-violent? That's just laughable. I guess you've never read the Lord of the Flies. Violence is in our nature and we use society and laws to assuage it. I would argue and many would agree that without the benefit of society and group behaviors we would be far more likely to fear and even attack people who look or believe differently that we do.

See, I must be silly. I thought power was the leading cause, but maybe I'm just not trying hard enough to ignore real evidence and just present a bigoted, irrational view of religion. I agree that people hide behind extreme viewpoints to justify violence or a denial of basic freedoms but we can't really know if the actions would still occur without the viewpoints to hide behind.

I feel that probably has less to do with religion/belief in general and more with the side-effect that an organized religion is a big herd of people following a doctrine unquestioningly. When religion causes a war, I suspect that has less to do with the "God" mentality, but more with the "Group" mentality. You see the same in fascist nations. It's like in witch hunts and the inquisition: As a natural survival advantage, most humans try to appear in good light to their leaders (their politicians, their clergy, or their God), and thus will seek to "outdo" each other in terms of faith/loyalty. This causes a "proliferation" of loyalty and suspicion: Anyone who even argues moderation or reason is obviously a dissident or a traitor.

That religion has caused that so often is due to the fact that few other groups have promoted the "unquestioning follower" doctrine as much as the various faiths.


Group mentality has something to do with warfare and the build to war, but the group mentality is inherent to organized religion.

However, if you take Hobbes or the overriding view of government, you will see that through out time, the actions of leaders were justified, if not handed down through a supreme being. Many people believed, and their belief was backed by the religions of their time, that to disobey their soveriegn was to disobey God.

The Christian religion had a precedent of God chosen leaders dating back to the old Testament with David and Solomon and the like. If you look at current American politics, many churches came out and said that God would want you to vote for George Bush. It would be naive to say that the East/West divide that is going on right now is not exascerbated by religious differences.

(I use Christianity because it is the religion I am familiar with)

I didn't ask about individual actions, I asked about war. It is much harder to go into the justification of religion in the individual than to talk about the effects religion has had on human society and development.

The point is we don't know the answer to the question. I've never met anyone in a position to decide whether or not to go to war and I've never been present while they made that decision. I suspect, nor have you. I don't know that Kennedy didn't choose not to use more violent means to deal with the Cuban missle crisis due to his faith in God. I suspect that if a person was really following the teachings of Christ (the things he actually said and not what the church tells you to do) that it would be difficult to not pursue a peaceful solution where possible.

As far as effects on society, religion was used on both sides of the debate about slavery when it was still acceptable, on both sides of the debate on capital punishment, on both sides of the debate on humane treatment of animals, on both sides of the debate on drugs, etc. For every example there is of some horror or atrocity committed by a zealot, there is an example of a religious person preaching sanity and moderation. How much violence was avoided because of Martin Luther King?

People are non-violent? That's just laughable. I guess you've never read the Lord of the Flies. Violence is in our nature and we use society and laws to assuage it. I would argue and many would agree that without the benefit of society and group behaviors we would be far more likely to fear and even attack people who look or believe differently that we do.

The Lord of the Flies was a look at what happens when people are forced to survive. It is a look at the basic nature of people. However, the author is forced to put them on an island in order to eliminate rationality. Rationality is the way in which humanity governs their behavior amongst a society, so in society it is assumed that people will behave peacefully because they are no longer forced to struggle for survival.

See, I must be silly. I thought power was the leading cause, but maybe I'm just not trying hard enough to ignore real evidence and just present a bigoted, irrational view of religion. I agree that people hide behind extreme viewpoints to justify violence or a denial of basic freedoms but we can't really know if the actions would still occur without the viewpoints to hide behind.

The quest for power has been the leading cause of war. But in almost all cases of war in the past, the leaders have pulled the people behind by assigning differences to the people on the other side. The leading example of difference used? Religion.

You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times. The major atrocities in history all have been condoned by a society, and it usually religion that is the principle rational used.

Group mentality has something to do with warfare and the build to war, but the group mentality is inherent to organized religion.

However, if you take Hobbes or the overriding view of government, you will see that through out time, the actions of leaders were justified, if not handed down through a supreme being. Many people believed, and their belief was backed by the religions of their time, that to disobey their soveriegn was to disobey God.

The Christian religion had a precedent of God chosen leaders dating back to the old Testament with David and Solomon and the like. If you look at current American politics, many churches came out and said that God would want you to vote for George Bush. It would be naive to say that the East/West divide that is going on right now is not exascerbated by religious differences.

(I use Christianity because it is the religion I am familiar with)

If a woman cuts a guys balls off in the name of feminism does that negate all the good feminism is responsible for. Leaders will always use whatever means necessary to gain and maintain power and if religion fits the bill then so be it. That makes the leaders wrong not religion. Race has been used as an excuse for war or for subjugating groups of people (not just in the US). Does that mean we need to wipe out racial identity? Race didn't cause the wars, the sick individuals who wanted to do these things did. If Bush or Kerry could have one the presidency based on having a bald head they would have shave their heads long ago.

Woah, all your post counts are like o.O

Well, I'm glad to know that was you Sinuhue because I like you but HerPower really pissed me off. Hmm.... I'd have to think about my hidden beliefs. Though what the world would be like if it was run by women is something I think about a lot. :)

If a woman cuts a guys balls off in the name of feminism does that negate all the good feminism is responsible for.

Feminism would not be the reason a woman would disfigure another person. That would require a high level of mental instability. We are also going to run into a problem where you have to convince me of all of these good things religion has done.

Leaders will always use whatever means necessary to gain and maintain power and if religion fits the bill then so be it. That makes the leaders wrong not religion. Race has been used as an excuse for war or for subjugating groups of people (not just in the US).

Do you really want to equate religion and racism? It does not bode well for your argument.

Anything that causes a person to ignore reason and submit themselves to the will of someone else is detrimental to society and that is what religion does.

Does that mean we need to wipe out racial identity? Race didn't cause the wars, the sick individuals who wanted to do these things did.

No, we wipe out racism, just like we wipe out religion. Luckily we are successfully doing that with the most beneficial thing society has ever had, education.

If Bush or Kerry could have one the presidency based on having a bald head they would have shave their heads long ago.

And how idiotic would it be if people judged other based on an artificial difference like baldness, (or maybe faith).

EDIT: I am really surprised that no one has come at me viciously yet.

The Lord of the Flies was a look at what happens when people are forced to survive. It is a look at the basic nature of people. However, the author is forced to put them on an island in order to eliminate rationality. Rationality is the way in which humanity governs their behavior amongst a society, so in society it is assumed that people will behave peacefully because they are no longer forced to struggle for survival.



The quest for power has been the leading cause of war. But in almost all cases of war in the past, the leaders have pulled the people behind by assigning differences to the people on the other side. The leading example of difference used? Religion.

You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times. The major atrocities in history all have been condoned by a society, and it usually religion that is the principle rational used.

I think I could make the claim that Christ was an extremist, that Hitler (yes, he's modern) was an extremist, that Atilla the Hun was an extremist. Extremist regularly gain the backing of the people by giving them an opportunity to accomplish something they want anyway. "You're poor and mistreated and the way to fix that is to kill <enter group here> because we are <enter group here>." That's the general way that works as you said above and religion is just a scapegoat. If religion didn't exist it would be amount of hair, or hair color, or skin color (oh, wait, that one already happens), or height, or any number of things.

I really wish Sinuhue and Drunk Commies hadnt made those puppets. Its already hard enough to have a debate which is anywhere near rational round here but with the effectiveness of those two puppets at ridiculing their own views, we'll probably see a whole lot more of them, though maybe not quite as extreme. I suppose we'll just have to get a lot more cynical.

omg !! so ur herpower, Sinuhue and jesusaves all in one !! omg...what if ur me too !! :eek:

I apologise for trolling with my lovely puppet HerPower
OMG you were HerPower? O_O

I really wish Sinuhue and Drunk Commies hadnt made those puppets. Its already hard enough to have a debate which is anywhere near rational round here but with the effectiveness of those two puppets at ridiculing their own views, we'll probably see a whole lot more of them, though maybe not quite as extreme. I suppose we'll just have to get a lot more cynical.
You DO realise that trolling existed before us, right? Choose your debates well...plenty of them are able to remain rational.

People are non-violent? That's just laughable. I guess you've never read the Lord of the Flies. Violence is in our nature and we use society and laws to assuage it. I would argue and many would agree that without the benefit of society and group behaviors we would be far more likely to fear and even attack people who look or believe differently that we do.
Perhaps a viewpoint somewhere in the middle might have merit? That we use society and laws to control our nature, but that religion can be a horrible perversion of what these laws should be, and in effect just a complex excuse for the very behaviour we wish to stop.

omg !! so ur herpower, Sinuhue and jesusaves all in one !! omg...what if ur me too !! :eek:
No, I was never Jesussaves. *sniff*

omg...what if ur me too !! :eek:
No, she's not you, I am!
^_^

Feminism would not be the reason a woman would disfigure another person. That would require a high level of mental instability. We are also going to run into a problem where you have to convince me of all of these good things religion has done.

You choose to ignore the good things religion has done. Just like some democrats choose to ignore the good a republican president has done and vice versa. You've chosen your side and you choose not to see anything else regardless of how rational it is. I don't agree with anyone who chooses to bash an entire group of people due to the actions of a small percentage. It's what racists do. It's what bigots do. And it's what you're doing right now.

Do you really want to equate religion and racism? It does not bode well for your argument.

I didn't equate religion and racism. I equated religious identity and racial identity. One could also throw cultural identity and sexual identity in there. None of these things are bad on their own, it is just when being of one race, religion, culture, sexual orientation is used as an excuse to hate others of a different race, religion, culture, sexual orientation. I would however equate racism with what you're espousing. You are condemning an entire group because some have committed atrocities.


Anything that causes a person to ignore reason and submit themselves to the will of someone else is detrimental to society and that is what religion does.

It's nice how you so clearly ignore that not all religion requires you to submit to someone else's will. For example, many think that their relationship with God is personal and that they are expected to live their lives in the best way possible and that God is solely a source of the strength required to do so.

No, we wipe out racism, just like we wipe out religion. Luckily we are successfully doing that with the most beneficial thing society has ever had, education.

It is religious intolerance that cause many of the problems you've talked about and, hopefully, education will bridge the gaps between groups and rub out all types of intolerance including the intolerance you're preaching right now.

And how idiotic would it be if people judged other based on an artificial difference like baldness, (or maybe faith).

Wait, wait, faith is an artificial difference? What isn't artificial then? If what people believe doesn't matter then what does matter to you? I submit that people can choose to believe whatever they wish as long as they don't trample on my freedoms in the course of their believing.

EDIT: I am really surprised that no one has come at me viciously yet.

Perhaps their religious principles have prevented them from doing so.

omg !! so ur herpower, Sinuhue and jesusaves all in one !! omg...what if ur me too !! :eek:

lol

Perhaps a viewpoint somewhere in the middle might have merit? That we use society and laws to control our nature, but that religion can be a horrible perversion of what these laws should be, and in effect just a complex excuse for the very behaviour we wish to stop.

I absolutely agree. However, intolerance is intolerance. It's not acceptable when it's people without religion taking rights or life away from people without religion or when it's people without religion taking rights or life away from people with religion. Or one religion doing it to another, etc. I simply don't agree with intolerance. The only thing I'm intolerant of is people denying me my rights, my liberty and/or my life.

Oh, and Jews.

Edit: That's a joke, folks.

I didn't equate religion and racism. I equated religious identity and racial identity. One could also throw cultural identity and sexual identity in there. None of these things are bad on their own
Since when is racial identity not a bad thing?


Perhaps their religious principles have prevented them from doing so.
LOL! You think? More likely their religious principles have had them choke to death in righteous fury before they could click the "quote" button.

I absolutely agree.
My God!! Someone agreeing with me?? Happy day! :p

I think I could make the claim that Christ was an extremist, that Hitler (yes, he's modern) was an extremist, that Atilla the Hun was an extremist. Extremist regularly gain the backing of the people by giving them an opportunity to accomplish something they want anyway. "You're poor and mistreated and the way to fix that is to kill <enter group here> because we are <enter group here>." That's the general way that works as you said above and religion is just a scapegoat. If religion didn't exist it would be amount of hair, or hair color, or skin color (oh, wait, that one already happens), or height, or any number of things.

Jesus was crucified for his beliefs, and it wasn't until more moderate "prophets" wrote tales and spread his name that he gained a true following. It can be argued that Paul had much more to do with the popularity of Christianity than Jesus.

The Nazi party never won a political election by majority. Hitler was placed in power through his use of scare tactics and a seizure of a government made weak by economic troubles. Hitler, by the way, envoked Christianity often, and the Passion plays in Germany were much of the reason the German public accepted the genocide of the Jews.

Religion mainly exists as a means for the rulers of a nation to coerce the people to do their biddings. And how many wars have been started up with the main justification being race?

Since when is racial identity not a bad thing?

Identifying yourself within a group isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm an Illini (college basketball) fan and people have killed each other over team affiliations before but that doesn't make affiliating yourself with a team a bad thing. If you don't believe that some people take team affiliations seriously go to Scotland and wear the wrong colors in the wrong towns.

Religion mainly exists as a means for the rulers of a nation to coerce the people to do their biddings.

Wow, I'd love to see you support this. I think I'm done trying to change the mind of a bigot.

And as far as race being the reason for wars, perhaps you should visit Asia sometime.

You DO realise that trolling existed before us, right? Choose your debates well...plenty of them are able to remain rational.

Yeah, of course. But when two puppets come along at once that are both so popular, the pratice is bound to get more widespread.

Yeah, of course. But when two puppets come along at once that are both so popular, the pratice is bound to get more widespread.
I think the mods have ruled to not allow that to happen. I think what happened to Jesussaves and HerPower is an example of what will happen to other puppets.

Hitler was placed in power through his use of scare tactics

Not really. Hitler gained power through a combination of the fact that the Weimar president, Hindenberg, believed Hitler was contrallable and the fact that his policies spoke to many working class German people angered by the harshness of Versailles.

You choose to ignore the good things religion has done. Just like some democrats choose to ignore the good a republican president has done and vice versa. You've chosen your side and you choose not to see anything else regardless of how rational it is. I don't agree with anyone who chooses to bash an entire group of people due to the actions of a small percentage. It's what racists do. It's what bigots do. And it's what you're doing right now.

I am not ignoring you right now. Explain just a few of the beneficial things religion has done.

I didn't equate religion and racism. I equated religious identity and racial identity. One could also throw cultural identity and sexual identity in there. None of these things are bad on their own, it is just when being of one race, religion, culture, sexual orientation is used as an excuse to hate others of a different race, religion, culture, sexual orientation. I would however equate racism with what you're espousing. You are condemning an entire group because some have committed atrocities.

I understand that people of all religions are the same as me. There is no fundamental difference between a person of religion and me. Therefore my problem is not with the people that are religious, but the religion itself.

It's nice how you so clearly ignore that not all religion requires you to submit to someone else's will. For example, many think that their relationship with God is personal and that they are expected to live their lives in the best way possible and that God is solely a source of the strength required to do so.

First off, we have a problem, I am arguing against religion, you are arguing for the individual. The problem with religion is that the individual is subservient to God, what God wants God should get. That means that people will put themselves and rationality second.

The people you are referring to are the wonderful result of education and autonomy.

It is religious intolerance that cause many of the problems you've talked about and, hopefully, education will bridge the gaps between groups and rub out all types of intolerance including the intolerance you're preaching right now.

Hopefully education will rub out the "group mentality" that was referred to earlier that fuels religion. The more you understand about the world, the less you need to sheild yourself with things like racism and religion.

Wait, wait, faith is an artificial difference? What isn't artificial then? If what people believe doesn't matter then what does matter to you? I submit that people can choose to believe whatever they wish as long as they don't trample on my freedoms in the course of their believing.

Faith is no more of a difference between people than baldness. Everyone has faith and everyone comes to their faith in fundamentally similar ways. So any means people would go about to separate themselves based on religion is silly.

Perhaps their religious principles have prevented them from doing so.

There are quite a few religious posters on here who's behavior betrays their true principles.

Wow, I'd love to see you support this. I think I'm done trying to change the mind of a bigot.

I will support this but it will require a new thread and what will probably be a very long post. I am at work right now, and am not afforded the time that would take.

And as far as race being the reason for wars, perhaps you should visit Asia sometime.

Enlighten me. You ask me to support my statements.

Not really. Hitler gained power through a combination of the fact that the Weimar president, Hindenberg, believed Hitler was contrallable and the fact that his policies spoke to many working class German people angered by the harshness of Versailles.

But my point was that his extremists views weren't really accepted by society until after he gained power, and even then they were accepted through a combination of force, poverty, and religion.

I use puppets to post on General just because I am too lazy to sign off whichever puppet I have logged in as.

I use puppets to post on General just because I am too lazy to sign off whichever puppet I have logged in as.

Pardon me, but I'm new - what's a puppet? An alias?
(the terms are different here - different than most forums that i belong to.)

Pardon me, but I'm new - what's a puppet? An alias?
(the terms are different here - different than most forums that i belong to.)
I know...it took me a long time to catch onto the lingo.

A puppet is a nation created by someone. It is like an alias, yes.

One last time, since you didn't hear it the first time, not all religions suggest that the individual is subservient to God. You're generalizing. That is why you can't argue against religion in general. Some religious principles are good and some are bad. It's that simple. Some religions encourage people to be rational and to look at the world around them and to find how science and their beliefs coexist and not how they compete. I can in fact detail how evolution could have happened and the events of creation just misinterpreted by some in the Bible. Religion does not require one to forgo reason. No more than atheism requires one to forgo reason. Religions are a philosophy and like any philosophy can be dangerous in the wrong hands or beneficial in the right hands.

Here are the examples again of good religious organizations for those who do not wish to actually read my other posts - the Red Cross and Alcoholics Anonymous.

AA is a religious organisation? Really?

I will support this but it will require a new thread and what will probably be a very long post. I am at work right now, and am not afforded the time that would take.



Enlighten me. You ask me to support my statements.

Damn, you got me on that one. It'll take me a while to find specific examples. I took a course on Asian history and it talked about how wars in Asia were often racially motivated as many countries in Eastern Asia shared the same or similar religions. In Japan it was common to be treated as a second-class citizen if you were of certain races because of anger harbored from these wars that occured so long ago.

I'd hoped to avoid examples of other groups against whites as whites were conquerors and this can be used as an excuse, but look at the Boxer rebellion. Shortly after that the Empress of China encourage the slaughter of all white people in Asia.

Many would also argue that the war in America with the Indians was a race war, or the war in Africa that resulted in colonization of Africa.

AA is a religious organisation? Really?

Do you know what the actual twelve steps are?

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

But my point was that his extremists views weren't really accepted by society until after he gained power, and even then they were accepted through a combination of force, poverty, and religion.

No, actually your point was "You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times". Are you arguing that Christ and Hitler can not be considered extremists or that they didn't make a dent in society or that they never had the backing of the people (now don't argue that posthumously doesn't count)?

Do you know what the actual twelve steps are?
Now I do! Thanks! I had no idea!

I know...it took me a long time to catch onto the lingo.

A puppet is a nation created by someone. It is like an alias, yes.

Thank you very much.

No, actually your point was "You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times". Are you arguing that Christ and Hitler can not be considered extremists or that they didn't make a dent in society or that they never had the backing of the people (now don't argue that posthumously doesn't count)?

Jesus was crucified and Christianity and did little to advance Christianity towards what it is today. If you want to talk about spreading Christianity you have to talk about Paul as he wrote most of the bible and was prominent in the early days of Christianity. Christ can be considered an extremist for saying that he was the messiah, but he was executed. It would be a stretch to say that Paul was an extremist.

As for Hitler and the Nazi party. Firstly, they never actually won a majority election. Secondly, their party was ushered in due to their fascist economic propaganda. They coerced the people through lies and force pretty much. To say that the German people rationally accepted the Nazi parties views would be silly.

Damn, you got me on that one. It'll take me a while to find specific examples. I took a course on Asian history and it talked about how wars in Asia were often racially motivated as many countries in Eastern Asia shared the same or similar religions. In Japan it was common to be treated as a second-class citizen if you were of certain races because of anger harbored from these wars that occured so long ago.

I'd hoped to avoid examples of other groups against whites as whites were conquerors and this can be used as an excuse, but look at the Boxer rebellion. Shortly after that the Empress of China encourage the slaughter of all white people in Asia.

Many would also argue that the war in America with the Indians was a race war, or the war in Africa that resulted in colonization of Africa.

Actually, now that I think about it, I am pretty sure that there have been many wars that have been race related, in which certain races have considered inferior. Much of the Imperialism period was spurred by the idea that the natives were inferior people and should be taken care of. However, one of the main tenents of that was that religion should be brought to them.

Jesus was crucified and Christianity and did little to advance Christianity towards what it is today. If you want to talk about spreading Christianity you have to talk about Paul as he wrote most of the bible and was prominent in the early days of Christianity. Christ can be considered an extremist for saying that he was the messiah, but he was executed. It would be a stretch to say that Paul was an extremist.

As for Hitler and the Nazi party. Firstly, they never actually won a majority election. Secondly, their party was ushered in due to their fascist economic propaganda. They coerced the people through lies and force pretty much. To say that the German people rationally accepted the Nazi parties views would be silly.

I don't believe you said extremist views or that I did. You said extremists never had the backing of the people or made a dent in society but that is exactly what both of these people had and did. And, yes, many would have called Paul an extremist. Or Socrates, or Aristotle, or Freud or any number of other people we still study today who still affect what people think and believe. They all would have been considered extremists in some fashion or another.

Well, it's going to be part apology, part something else. Apology first.

I apologise for trolling with my lovely puppet HerPower. I wanted to express some extreme opinions on feminism I am quite familiar with, yet do no support (except in the deepest, darkest, most evil corners of my reptilian brain), but I didn't want people to think that I myself champion those sorts of beliefs. I guess I should have just waited until a real HerPower came along to bring some of these things up, but I got antsy and figured I'd conjure her up myself. In any case, sorry. I got spanked for it, and on further reflection, I'm okay with that. It was deserved.

Now for the second part:

Do you hold some extreme opinions that you don't necessarily FULLY support, but can't help thinking about sometimes? Do you refrain, in the interests of reasonableness (and to not ruin your reputation) to NOT express those opinions here? What are those ideas?

Like I said, I used HerPower to bring up some arguments I've heard, but do not necessarily agree with. However, the reaction to those arguements was fantastic. Ideas I've kind of toyed with, but hadn't really examined (vasectomies for all men, for one:)) suddenly got VERY examined, and banished them from my thoughts all together. In fact, it was rather like a good sweeping of the darkened corners of my mind...all those extreme opinions I'd never really looked at too hard disappeared with a flash once they were touched by the light of reason:).

Perhaps we should sweep ALL our minds of these dirty little thoughts...let others shed some light on them and render them impotent! (no pun intended)
That was you? *grabs shotgun* Start running. And stay away from my balls.

Identifying yourself within a group isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm an Illini (college basketball) fan and people have killed each other over team affiliations before but that doesn't make affiliating yourself with a team a bad thing. If you don't believe that some people take team affiliations seriously go to Scotland and wear the wrong colors in the wrong towns.
In some instances, yes, identity can be nice, but in this instance? It would seem to create artificial barriers between us for no real reason.

In some instances, yes, identity can be nice, but in this instance? It would seem to create artificial barriers between us for no real reason.

Identity is a great thing when it allows people to feel connected to others and to a history. It is only dangerous and wrong, IMHO, when people use it to divide and pull apart or create barriers, as you put it.

Actually, now that I think about it, I am pretty sure that there have been many wars that have been race related, in which certain races have considered inferior. Much of the Imperialism period was spurred by the idea that the natives were inferior people and should be taken care of. However, one of the main tenents of that was that religion should be brought to them.

To say it was a main "tenet" is spurious. I don't think you can accurately make the claim that without religious involvement the taken of the land from Native Americans would not have been considered acceptable. No one was trying to bring religion to the people they were killing and duping out of land. Bringing religion to native peoples was at best loosely linked to colonizing the Americas.

I don't believe you said extremist views or that I did. You said extremists never had the backing of the people or made a dent in society but that is exactly what both of these people had and did. And, yes, many would have called Paul an extremist. Or Socrates, or Aristotle, or Freud or any number of other people we still study today who still affect what people think and believe. They all would have been considered extremists in some fashion or another.

I would like to point out that we are discussing religion being used by leaders to rile people into terrible acts. I have not heard of too many dead kings leading their nation to war, so I think posthumous influence can be thrown out.

To say it was a main "tenet" is spurious. I don't think you can accurately make the claim that without religious involvement the taken of the land from Native Americans would not have been considered acceptable. No one was trying to bring religion to the people they were killing and duping out of land. Bringing religion to native peoples was at best loosely linked to colonizing the Americas.

I am not saying that without religion they would not have gone ahead and done it. I am just saying that religion was used to cause the people of the imperialistic nations to be more compliant to some of the crimes that they were committing.

Identity is a great thing when it allows people to feel connected to others and to a history. It is only dangerous and wrong, IMHO, when people use it to divide and pull apart or create barriers, as you put it.
Well, try as I might, I can't find anything to argue about there. What is going on!? Agreement on this forum twice in one evening? We had better fall out, or one of us will be accused of being the puppet of the other.

Although I would develop your point further, and say that racial identity is particularly bad. With, for example, supporting football teams, one can always opt out of the whole affair if one wishes. Such is not the case with race - if one group of people start talking about Us, and by implication, Them, then the rest of us are forced into remembering which we ourselves are. When I read about black voting iniatives and racial minority election issues in the press, I am forced to think of my own position as part of different separate group, when all I really want is for there to be no groups at all - but unlike the case of football teams, I cannot simply opt out.

I would like to point out that we are discussing religion being used by leaders to rile people into terrible acts. I have not heard of too many dead kings leading their nation to war, so I think posthumous influence can be thrown out.

You've never heard of a martyr?

You've never heard of a martyr?

Martyrs cannot lead a country to war, it requires a leader to exploit the martyr.

I am not saying that without religion they would not have gone ahead and done it. I am just saying that religion was used to cause the people of the imperialistic nations to be more compliant to some of the crimes that they were committing.

That doesn't make religion wrong, it makes the imperialistic nations wrong. If they hadn't been able to use religion they would have found something else. They would have used some other way to create "us" and "them". Somebody abusing the tool doesn't mean we should deny that item to everyone else.

Martyrs cannot lead a country to war, it requires a leader to exploit the martyr.

You made the point that extremists never affected the world much until recent history. I pointed out they do. And, fine, if you're not going to submit to my previous example, how about Joan of Arc. She thought she spoke to God and was predestined to free France. I think most would consider her an extremist.

Well, try as I might, I can't find anything to argue about there. What is going on!? Agreement on this forum twice in one evening? We had better fall out, or one of us will be accused of being the puppet of the other.

Although I would develop your point further, and say that racial identity is particularly bad. With, for example, supporting football teams, one can always opt out of the whole affair if one wishes. Such is not the case with race - if one group of people start talking about Us, and by implication, Them, then the rest of us are forced into remembering which we ourselves are. When I read about black voting iniatives and racial minority election issues in the press, I am forced to think of my own position as part of different separate group, when all I really want is for there to be no groups at all - but unlike the case of football teams, I cannot simply opt out.

You're gonna crap on yourself, but I agree with that point as well. I've always found racial, cultural and ethnic identity a little difficult because there is such a list of abuses of these identities. I submit that the only reason you would need to opt out is because the hideous and greivous abuses carried out in the name of these identities in the past centuries. I know that as a white male, I have a lot of difficulty finding my identity in either being white or being male without feeling associated with all the ills that have be conducted by white males. But I've never killed a native american or denied a woman the right to vote. I don't know what the solution to that is, but I say the same thing about these identities as I do about religion - just because they have been abused that does not give anyone the right to deny people their individual freedom to identify themselves in this way as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

You made the point that extremists never affected the world much until recent history. I pointed out they do. And, fine, if you're not going to submit to my previous example, how about Joan of Arc. She thought she spoke to God and was predestined to free France. I think most would consider her an extremist.

The point I was trying to make is that extremists never manage to gain enough influence over the population of a society to influence it's actions.

I should not have said never, and I probably phrased it wrong in the first place.

As for Joan of Arc, she was certainly not an extremist for the period. In today's society she would be considered an extremist, but direct contact with God was considered to be much more plausible in that period. Needless to say her story is quite amazing, however.

The problem is, that she does not qualify for our argument, as she never lead the society, she was a general in a war that was already happening. While she did influence French society, she never induced it to action.

EDIT: Extremists are extreme in relation to the society they live in. What this means is that they have very few followers, meaning that by definition they have little influence on the actions and beliefs of said society.

And I am not entirely positive how we got to discussing extremists and how they relate to our initial argument.

The point I was trying to make is that extremists never manage to gain enough influence over the population of a society to influence it's actions.

I should not have said never, and I probably phrased it wrong in the first place.

As for Joan of Arc, she was certainly not an extremist for the period. In today's society she would be considered an extremist, but direct contact with God was considered to be much more plausible in that period. Needless to say her story is quite amazing, however.

The problem is, that she does not qualify for our argument, as she never lead the society, she was a general in a war that was already happening. While she did influence French society, she never induced it to action.

EDIT: Extremists are extreme in relation to the society they live in. What this means is that they have very few followers, meaning that by definition they have little influence on the actions and beliefs of said society.

And I am not entirely positive how we got to discussing extremists and how they relate to our initial argument.

That's amusing. You defined extremists in such a way that they can't still be considered extremists once they finally gain power. Joan of Arc was considered an extremist and was burned at the stake for blasphemy. She definitely did much to affect history and some credit her with gelling the french troops together and leading them to victory. Despite the fact that you choose to redefine extremist, Socrates, Freud, Christ, Hitler and Joan of Arc would all qualify as extremists and all changed the way we live and think and believe today. I would say that qualifies as making a dent in society. Again, I cite Hitler. Did he not gain enough influence to influence society's actions? I didn't say he got everyone to agree with his views, but certainly he got a huge population to act on his views.

That's amusing. You defined extremists in such a way that they can't still be considered extremists once they finally gain power. Joan of Arc was considered an extremist and was burned at the stake for blasphemy. She definitely did much to affect history and some credit her with gelling the french troops together and leading them to victory. Despite the fact that you choose to redefine extremist, Socrates, Freud, Christ, Hitler and Joan of Arc would all qualify as extremists and all changed the way we live and think and believe today. I would say that qualifies as making a dent in society. Again, I cite Hitler. Did he not gain enough influence to influence society's actions? I didn't say he got everyone to agree with his views, but certainly he got a huge population to act on his views.

I didn't say that extremists can't be considered extremists once they came to power. I just said that if the majority of the population supported and followed them they would no longer be an extremist.

Out of all of those only Hitler qualifies as an example of an extremist who came to lead his society. I do find it hard to believe that the German people truly supported his views, so he remained an extremist while he was in power.

Like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini he ruled through force and coersion, and not through the support of society. Now, what does this really have to do with religion, again?

I didn't say that extremists can't be considered extremists once they came to power. I just said that if the majority of the population supported and followed them they would no longer be an extremist.

Out of all of those only Hitler qualifies as an example of an extremist who came to lead his society. I do find it hard to believe that the German people truly supported his views, so he remained an extremist while he was in power.

Like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini he ruled through force and coersion, and not through the support of society. Now, what does this really have to do with religion, again?

You made a point I didn't agree with, "You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times", and I argued against it. I think I've clearly shown that you were incorrect to make the statement you did. You've since changed the meaning of extreme to make it so my original point was incorrect which was that leaders hide behind extreme viewpoints. I would call saying that you were ordained by God to lead a group extreme, be you Joan of Arc, Louis XXVI or George W. Bush. I think the Salem witch trials, the crusades were all exploiting an extreme interpretation of the bible. The point I was making, before we began the argument on what an extremist is, is that you cannot suggest that all religion is wrong because some have used extreme interpretations to exploit and destroy people.

You made a point I didn't agree with, "You can make an argument for extremists, but extremists never gain the backing of the people and have never been able to make a dent in society before recent times"

I was incorrect in saying that. Extremists have risen to power and have actually made big impacts on society. I can be a little scatterbrained and I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said that.

You've since changed the meaning of extreme to make it so my original point was incorrect which was that leaders hide behind extreme viewpoints.

The point I was trying to make today was that extremists have beliefs outside the norm for a society, and so were their views to be largely accepted by society, they would no longer be extremists. Extremist leaders come to power through force and scare tactics, or by effectively hiding their extremist views.

I would call saying that you were ordained by God to lead a group extreme, be you Joan of Arc, Louis XXVI or George W. Bush. I think the Salem witch trials, the crusades were all exploiting an extreme interpretation of the bible. The point I was making, before we began the argument on what an extremist is, is that you cannot suggest that all religion is wrong because some have used extreme interpretations to exploit and destroy people.

Extremists are determined by the times, and none of those mentioned would be extreme for their time. The Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades would be based on extremist Christian views by todays standards, but since they were accepted by society they could not have been considered extreme at the time.

As for religion, it's existence has made it much easier for people and society in general to be exploited. It renders the people to be more submissive than usual, and much of its perpetuation has come about via the elite's need to establish and maintain a hierarchy in society.

EDIT: Man, I sound like a Bolshevik.

Holy shit Sinhue!? You were HerPower? I go away for two days, I tells ya...

I was incorrect in saying that. Extremists have risen to power and have actually made big impacts on society. I can be a little scatterbrained and I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said that.



The point I was trying to make today was that extremists have beliefs outside the norm for a society, and so were their views to be largely accepted by society, they would no longer be extremists. Extremist leaders come to power through force and scare tactics, or by effectively hiding their extremist views.



Extremists are determined by the times, and none of those mentioned would be extreme for their time. The Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades would be based on extremist Christian views by todays standards, but since they were accepted by society they could not have been considered extreme at the time.

As for religion, it's existence has made it much easier for people and society in general to be exploited. It renders the people to be more submissive than usual, and much of its perpetuation has come about via the elite's need to establish and maintain a hierarchy in society.

EDIT: Man, I sound like a Bolshevik.


Again, I cite Joan of Arc who was considered so extreme that they burned her at the stake. Most of the world would have considered the views held by those in Salem to be extreme which is why they're called the Salem witch trials and not the world witch trials.

As for religion, becuase people have exploited religion does excuse people who are intollerant of it. To suggest that it makes people submissive is spurious. I think many would and could argue the it was religion that gave people the strength to rise up and revolt in slave times. The underground railroad had strongly religious ties. I'm fairly certain that isn't an example of the elite perpetuating it. And don't worry, I'm not arguing that it hasn't been exploited by the elite, it has. I'm only saying that whether or not something has been exploited has little or no bearing on it's validity and it's usefulness in society.

Sorry, Sinuhue, didn't mean to hijack your thread. You're welcome to throw rocks at me.... NOW!!!

That's a pretty good example. I've thought about it too, but it is so abhorrent to the rest of my thinking that I can't stand to examine it too much. It does worry me that we seem to be going against evolution and actually getting weaker...I wear glasses for one, and I wouldn't have survived long in the bad old days before eye correction was possible. I think we are letting a lot of weaknesses into our species that would not have survived before, but at least in the west we have the technology to work around that. I always think though...what if something terrible happened and that technology no longer existed...I'd be a goner once my glasses broke:).

It is a terrible thought, and people take it to extremes and say we should use eugenics to wipe out different races too. That is why I don't like to examine it too closely, but it does gnaw at me sometimes when I least expect it. Especially when I think about having a deformed or handicapped child...I like to think I could handle it, but I'm not so sure.

So you're not alone in this. I hate that I have these thoughts, but at least they don't form a part of our true belief systems!


My wife worked for 12 years with people who were either mentally or physically handicapped. She has allways said that, while the person is great, the effect on all those around them is destructive. They age thier parents and siblings, needing them to do so much for them, and of the worry waiting for them to die (downs adults rarely make it beyond 40, although my wifes aunt was 60 when she went).
So yes I to am against saving mentally damaged children and adults.