NationStates Jolt Archive

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?

Just ignore the jerks. A few intolerant irritants is no reason to leave for good. :(

For me at least, dealing with people who disagree with me is the whole point of being on General. Debates, and all that.

Hey, if someone is irritating you just put them on your ignore list. No need to leave just because of them. :(

For me at least, dealing with people who disagree with me is the whole point of being on General. Debates, and all that.
I agree. I'm usually not one for ignore lists, but if it's bad enough that a longtime member is considering leaving, then it should definitely be used.

Because tolerance would require us to see our own prejudices brought out in to the light of day. For me, that's a tough thing because I realize that my rational mind has irrational prejudices lurking behind it, no matter how hard I try to eliminate them or how much I pride myself on being "progressive" on social and economic issues.

Also, farewell Smunk. You are a great member of this forum, and it'll be a shame to see you go. I hope you return someday.

Quick, everybody join Athar! Or something. And I like to think that I'm tolerant of other people's belief choices, even respectfull of them, for the most part (unless they start preaching to me, when I just walk away from them)*. I can't speak for why other people feel or act certain ways.









*Haha, I wish.

Hey, if someone is irritating you just put them on your ignore list. No need to leave just because of them. :(
Yeah, like I did with Eve Online. Reading his posts drops my IQ and raises my blood pressure. And I don't usually like ignoring people.

you were the victim of a particularly obnoxious poster. im sure he has offended many people here. i mostly try to ignore him myself so i dont end up flaming.

he is dead to many people now.

consider putting him on ignore and coming back on a limited basis. no sense letting one jerk keep you from your friends.

Eh, stay here, will you?


(Also, just in case you don't follow my orders, before you go: Have you finally managed to get hubby to come along dancing with you?)

I haven't posted with you much. But there's something sad about a regular leaving, and you're among the forum giants.

What the hell is going on tonight? Is it Friday or something?

Eh, stay here, will you?


(Also, just in case you don't follow my orders, before you go: Have you finally managed to get hubby to come along dancing with you?)

for this I reply. :)

yes, he dances with me, in public, as long as it's a waltz or a tango, and if I let him dip me. :D (he hasn't managed to injure me yet!:eek: :p )

Definitely, Smunkee; use ignore. I've started doing that so that I don't let certain people goad me into flaming.

Screw tolerance!





































:p

Sorry to see you go. :(

I really don't want to see you go. I am an agnostic, but, while I might argue beliefs, I don't go after people unless I perceive them as being stupid. I have never perceived you as stupid. Instead I see you as an intelligent, caring person who has a perspective that is really needed in NS.

I have my suspicions that UB is a troll, so...

Wait, what?

Smunkee, you're one of the coolest people on this forum. Always a reminder than not every religious person is a tool.

:(

Just ignore the jerks. A few intolerant irritants is no reason to leave for good. :(


I understand her point though. There are a LOT of morons about. Sometimes you just get tired of expressing the same sentiment for the millionth time, endlessly refighting the same fight ad nausum. I know I do. Sometimes you just know that common sense will not and never will prevail in the debate at hand and they shall never experience The Sweet Light Of Reason. Some topics are unwinnable because they are faith based issues, either you have it, or you don't, and changing opinions in those cases are impossible. I've not always agreed with Smunkee, but by the same token, I have also never felt compelled to try to tear her a new one just for having a different opinion from mine either.

But many here would.

Oh, yes. Many would.

There are a LOT of morons about.

that is one more point why i cut back on NS as well as playing my PC games

you were the victim of a particularly obnoxious poster. im sure he has offended many people here. i mostly try to ignore him myself so i dont end up flaming.

he is dead to many people now.

consider putting him on ignore and coming back on a limited basis. no sense letting one jerk keep you from your friends.

Quien es?

You're a real star; you always manage to stay so calm around people when they're insulting faith and religion. You make me look bad by coming into threads where I'm ranting and being reasonable about everything. :p

I really hope you don't go for long, although I understand that everyone needs a break from here once in a while. Looking forward to seeing you again. :)

Ignore the haters, and choose your threads wisely.

Failing that, take a break and come back refreshed :)

After all, there still is one mystery that's still left unsolved! :p

After all, there still is one mystery that's still left unsolved! :p

Why the Scots fry porridge?


Adios, Smunk. Have fun, and hopefully we'll see you around.
One thing to remember, if you don't already; disagree != dislike.

Aww... why do all the cool people leave?

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1663/tmpaz2.jpg

Why the Scots fry porridge?
I thought that one was solved...

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?
Other people generally suck.:)

That's too bad. Though of course we disagree on spiritual matters, you're one of the most reasonable people on this site.

Heh Smunkers! Don't leave this spring of insanity!

Heh Smunkers! Don't leave this spring of insanity!

Seconded. You can't go, you're one of the few sane people on here. :fluffle:

You parade your religious belief here. If you can't take the heat you should perhaps not open your mouth.

So you get taken to task (and if you think you were hard done by then I am surprised as you gave as good as you got) and decide to leave a slightly heated debate...well it shows a lack of commitment at the very least.

Sorry but I'll save my sympathy for those who really needs it.

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?

Smunkee, I like you, and I find that sometimes it's just best to lurk for a while.

You parade your religious belief here. If you can't take the heat you should perhaps not open your mouth.

So you get taken to task (and if you think you were hard done by then I am surprised as you gave as good as you got) and decide to leave a slightly heated debate...well it shows a lack of commitment at the very least.

Sorry but I'll save my sympathy for those who really needs it.

I have to agree with this post. Sorry Smunkee, but Ruby is right.

I have to agree with this post. Sorry Smunkee, but Ruby is right.
Except that she doesn't parade her religious belief. Definitely not as much as some parade their antitheism and hatred of religion.

Except that she doesn't parade her religious belief. Definitely not as much as some parade their antitheism and hatred of religion.

Really? Unless you are a returnee (and blind) you are a n00bie here son.

Smunkee does not hide her faith in Christ. She has mentioned her faith in many many posts.

I'll miss you, Smunkee.

I have to agree with this post. Sorry Smunkee, but Ruby is right.

Don't get me wrong...I don't want to see another decent poster leave...

/ruby - English slang for curry ! LOL

You parade your religious belief here. If you can't take the heat you should perhaps not open your mouth.

So you get taken to task (and if you think you were hard done by then I am surprised as you gave as good as you got) and decide to leave a slightly heated debate...well it shows a lack of commitment at the very least.

Sorry but I'll save my sympathy for those who really needs it.

Parade? Smunkee doesn't hide her beliefs but neither does she push them in anyone's face.

Other people generally suck.:)

Generally? Slight underestimation there.

Parade? Smunkee doesn't hide her beliefs but neither does she push them in anyone's face.

Parade...yes...that does not mean pushing them...which she does not btw.

Don't get me wrong...I don't want to see another decent poster leave...

/ruby - English slang for curry ! LOL

I like Smun and hate to see her go. She is a very nice person and tries to be nice to everyone, but I have to agree with her.

There are many people here who claim to be liberal, un-biased, and respect the rights of others who are really intolerant and prejudice. They want you to respect their rights and beliefs but have no respect for your right to express what you believe in. They will call you a bigot because you don't agree with them. They do not respect any opinion except their own.

There are some here who do carry on a civilized debate. They may not agree with the person they are debating, but they do respect the other person's opinion. Unfortunately, these individuals are few and far between.

Smun, good buy and good luck.

"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

:( Goodbye Smunkee, you are one of the most respected people on this forum (for me at least) *sad panda*

Smun...good buy. I know how you feel http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12494579&postcount=23

The problem is that there are some people (on all sides of the religion debate) who literally cannot see any difference between someone stating their beliefs and someone "pushing it in their face". Simply state your belief, and suddenly you will be accused of intolerance for other beliefs, illogic, assorted kinds of hatred, and other rubbish, whether you have actually displayed those qualities or not.

The larger problem is that it is precisely this kind of behavior that prevents us from having a rational conversation about religion. We badly need to have one, but any attempt to have it gets drowned out by the shouting.

Given the above, it's not surprising that people occasionally feel the need to just walk away from it all sometimes. It's a pity, though, because, as I said, we really need to have a respectful and rational discussion about the value of religion in the modern world.

You parade your religious belief here. If you can't take the heat you should perhaps not open your mouth.

So you get taken to task (and if you think you were hard done by then I am surprised as you gave as good as you got) and decide to leave a slightly heated debate...well it shows a lack of commitment at the very least.

Sorry but I'll save my sympathy for those who really needs it.

'Parading' belief is not something we should be ashamed of, nor intolerant of.

I have absolutely no problems with Smunkee, with her 'parading' her belief, with the beliefs she claims - because she has never once suggested that anything about her personal belief should apply to me.

I believe in a freedom of religion - and a freedom from religion. Smunkee has always argued freedom of religion, and supported my 'right' to be free from religion if that's what is right for me.

I have no time for religious intolerance.

'Parading' belief is not something we should be ashamed of, nor intolerant of.

I have absolutely no problems with Smunkee, with her 'parading' her belief, with the beliefs she claims - because she has never once suggested that anything about her personal belief should apply to me.

I believe in a freedom of religion - and a freedom from religion. Smunkee has always argued freedom of religion, and supported my 'right' to be free from religion if that's what is right for me.

I have no time for religious intolerance.

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

However one should expect people to question. I think its sad that she feels she has to leave.

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?

In general, I would be inclined to say it's because they simply cannot understand other people on a deeper level. That seems to be a common feature of human individuality.

I think that when it comes to the issue of religious belief in particular, the problem of intolerance is generally even worse for two reasons. People are either part of the majority religion where they live, or they are not. If they are, then many people like this will show their intolerance for other beliefs because they lack sufficient familiarity and empathy with them. If, on the other hand, they are not part of the majority religion, then they are likely to experience this intolerance and return the favor to any member of the religion because some members of the majority religion have victimized them and others with similar beliefs.

you were the victim of a particularly obnoxious poster. im sure he has offended many people here. i mostly try to ignore him myself so i dont end up flaming.

he is dead to many people now.

consider putting him on ignore and coming back on a limited basis. no sense letting one jerk keep you from your friends.

I find it interesting that you and several others who are not a member of her religion (and not necessarily even religious) are supporting her. Perhaps there's hope for religious tolerance after all. :)

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

However one should expect people to question. I think its sad that she feels she has to leave.

Smunkee has always been open to questions. She has never hidden her belief, but she has never hidden behind it either.

On the other hand, some people consider the simple admission of being 'a Christian' or 'a fundamentalist' to be enough of a justification to attack someone, and yet - all too often - these are the same people that bitch and moan about how they are being victimised for something they believe, or do.

Smunkee was one of the (very few) truly reasonable faces of Christianity on this forum. I'll be sad to see her go for that reason. She's also just a real darling, and I'll be even sadder to see her go for that reason.

No one should ever be chased out of town just because they follow a different god, have a different colour of skin, follow a different political ideal...

Smunkee was one of the (very few) truly reasonable faces of Christianity on this forum. I'll be sad to see her go for that reason. She's also just a real darling, and I'll be even sadder to see her go for that reason.


I agree, I was so surprised when I found out she was a christian, she just seemed way too (sorry Christians) liberal.

You'll be missed. There have been times when I have disagreed completely with you (not often) but you're someone whose posts I enjoyed and whose conviction I respected.

I'll try to keep in touch, if ya don't mind. :)

I agree, I was so surprised when I found out she was a christian, she just seemed way too (sorry Christians) liberal.

What am I, chopped liver? :D

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?

If it's any comfort to you, UB gets on my nerves too. And I'm a proud atheist. Besides, most of the intelligent people around here know you're a fundamentalist, not a fundie. That may not be much to some people, but for you, it's like the difference between a German and a Nazi.

Smunkee has always been open to questions. She has never hidden her belief, but she has never hidden behind it either.

On the other hand, some people consider the simple admission of being 'a Christian' or 'a fundamentalist' to be enough of a justification to attack someone, and yet - all too often - these are the same people that bitch and moan about how they are being victimised for something they believe, or do.

Smunkee was one of the (very few) truly reasonable faces of Christianity on this forum. I'll be sad to see her go for that reason. She's also just a real darling, and I'll be even sadder to see her go for that reason.

No one should ever be chased out of town just because they follow a different god, have a different colour of skin, follow a different political ideal...

Well sorta....I read that entire damn thread and quite frankly it was only slightly heated...yet she decided to leave...

And she was not really answering questions...it was a circle jerk (and no...not of her making)...and she contributed to it by being evasive.

I agree it is a shame to lose a long standing poster.

Well sorta....I read that entire damn thread and quite frankly it was only slightly heated...yet she decided to leave...

And she was not really answering questions...it was a circle jerk (and no...not of her making)...and she contributed to it by being evasive.

I agree it is a shame to lose a long standing poster.

I doubt Smunkee is leaving because of one thread. More likely, there are camel's backs and straws at work. And certain posters might have finally gotten too much... an attrition.

I don't always mind losing 'long-standing posters'. I do mind losing those that are reasonable, personable, and more of an asset than a liability. (whether or not I agree with them, is irrelevent).

I do mind losing those that are [...] more of an asset than a liability.

What is this, dodge ball?

I doubt Smunkee is leaving because of one thread. More likely, there are camel's backs and straws at work. And certain posters might have finally gotten too much... an attrition.

I don't always mind losing 'long-standing posters'. I do mind losing those that are reasonable, personable, and more of an asset than a liability. (whether or not I agree with them, is irrelevent).

Dude...you won't be missing 4/5ths of NSG then! LOL! ;)

What is this, dodge ball?

No - more like a school I get 'for free'. but with no regulation or quality control.

Smunkee was an asset because, while I might not agree with her course material, I learned in her 'class'. On the other hand, I think we've all encountered members of the faculty that were harmful to the learning process - even if we might agree with their material.

Dude...you won't be missing 4/5ths of NSG then! LOL! ;)

In all seriouness, i don't know about the exact proportions, but there have been 'losses' I lament... and many more that I don't.

In all seriouness, i don't know about the exact proportions, but there have been 'losses' I lament... and many more that I don't.

Bet you didn't miss me when I stopped posting for ages ;)

In all seriousness...losing long timers of any standing is a shame...to get to be a long timer without going totally nuts is something to be valued...

Guys, there's such a plethora of all different nationalities ranging from the ages of 12 to like 40 something with political beliefs from the far left to the far right.

Of course things will get nasty sometimes, it simply cannot be avoided.

Bet you didn't miss me when I stopped posting for ages ;)

In all seriousness...losing long timers of any standing is a shame...to get to be a long timer without going totally nuts is something to be valued...

I'm pretty insular. Unless we had specific interactions, I might not have noticed you were 'here'. :o

Those weak SOBs refuse to show their collective faces here, wisely.

It is very rarely that someone of your stature should leave. You shouldn't because of two idiots (nicely put) that can easily be put on ignore.

I'm pretty insular. Unless we had specific interactions, I might not have noticed you were 'here'. :o

LOL!!! I doubt I noticed as well!

I'm considering leaving too, this forum's becoming a one-sided echo chamber, with dissenting opinions being shouted down immediately.

I'm considering leaving too, this forum's becoming a one-sided echo chamber, with dissenting opinions being shouted down immediately.

You'll be back. :)

I'm considering leaving too, this forum's becoming a one-sided echo chamber, with dissenting opinions being shouted down immediately.

Which 'side' is the 'one' side?

Smunkee get back here now!

http://www.orlyowl.com/please.jpg

If you don't. I'll just bug you in Athar! :p

Smunkee get back here now!

If you don't. I'll just bug you in Athar! :p

Mind if I help, man?

Which 'side' is the 'one' side?

You know as well as I do.

You know as well as I do.

I'm not sure I do.

Mind if I help, man?

Go young Johnny for this quest has been thrust upon you!

I'm not sure I do.

:rolleyes: Great, even acknowledging the obvious now warrants being set up for execution. I'm leaving, now.

Except that she doesn't parade her religious belief. Definitely not as much as some parade their antitheism and hatred of religion.

Really? Unless you are a returnee (and blind) you are a n00bie here son.

Smunkee does not hide her faith in Christ. She has mentioned her faith in many many posts.

There's a big difference between not parading one's belief and not hiding it. Smunkee has never been, in my experience, a proselytizer of her faith, which is one of the reasons I like chatting with her. And while she may self-identify as a fundamentalist, I've heard enough of her stories about her interactions with her fellow church members to know that she's open-minded on a lot of issues that stereotypical fundamentalists are not.

You'll be missed.

Which 'side' is the 'one' side?

Take your best guess.

There's a big difference between not parading one's belief and not hiding it. Smunkee has never been, in my experience, a proselytizer of her faith, which is one of the reasons I like chatting with her. And while she may self-identify as a fundamentalist, I've heard enough of her stories about her interactions with her fellow church members to know that she's open-minded on a lot of issues that stereotypical fundamentalists are not.

Parading does not mean proselytizing....and I have never said that she shoved her religion down anyones throat...

:rolleyes: Great, even acknowledging the obvious now warrants being set up for execution. I'm leaving, now.

Personally, I didn't see the scaffolds or the rope there.

:mad:Them's asshats. Come back. You are missed.

I'm considering leaving too, this forum's becoming a one-sided echo chamber, with dissenting opinions being shouted down immediately.

While I'm not sure what you're talking about, I say the same as to the rest: Maybe a vacation will do you good? :)

But do come back afterwards...

Guys, there's such a plethora of all different nationalities ranging from the ages of 12 to like 63 something with political beliefs from the far left to the far right.

Of course things will get nasty sometimes, it simply cannot be avoided.

Corrected. But maybe 40 after today. :)

I'm considering leaving too, this forum's becoming a one-sided echo chamber, with dissenting opinions being shouted down immediately.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/CAZex.gif AMEN!

We'll miss you Smunk.

But I'll be annoyed, because you'll probably become some mythical myrthesque figure.

We'll miss you Smunk.

But I'll be annoyed, because you'll probably become some mythical myrthesque figure.

*begins writing the Legend Of The Marriage of Smunk And Myrth*
:p

Bye Smunk... Hope to see you one day.

Go young Johnny for this quest has been thrust upon you!

Yes, sah! (Salutes smartly)

Now what do I do? :confused:

Yes, sah! (Salutes smartly)

Now what do I do? :confused:

Well moving to Athar would be a wise choice...

Really? Unless you are a returnee (and blind) you are a n00bie here son.

Smunkee does not hide her faith in Christ. She has mentioned her faith in many many posts.
To parade in this context would be to appear and start talking about Jesus in irrelevant threads.

She doesn't hide it and why should she?

I have been here since summer 2004. In that time the average atheist on this forum has gone from saying "religion is OK as long as they don't force it on me" to "religion is not OK, you must be shouted at!"

In that time the average atheist on this forum has gone from saying "religion is OK as long as they don't force it on me" to "religion is not OK, you must be shouted at!"

I think you are talking out of your arse.

I can think of (one or two) people that might act that way, but they are just as popular with their Atheist 'brethren' as they are with their religious opposition. The 'average' Atheist, much like the 'average' theist, is almost never typified by the extremely loud intolerant minority.

Personally, I didn't see the scaffolds or the rope there.
That's because we're going to do this by firing squad.

I think you are talking out of your arse.

I can think of (one or two) people that might act that way, but they are just as popular with their Atheist 'brethren' as they are with their religious opposition. The 'average' Atheist, much like the 'average' theist, is almost never typified by the extremely loud intolerant minority.

you are one of the few I will miss, don't think for a minute you are in the majority of anything around here.

I think you are talking out of your arse.

I can think of (one or two) people that might act that way, but they are just as popular with their Atheist 'brethren' as they are with their religious opposition. The 'average' Atheist, much like the 'average' theist, is almost never typified by the extremely loud intolerant minority.

Please. It's gotten pretty bad around here. Not neccessarily in terms of shouting down people for what they believe in (though there are quite a few who have taken to just that recently), but in snarky, insensitive comments. There will be a thread about religion and every atheist and his mother just HAVE to drop a comment about Christians being delusional, the fairy god in the sky, etc. etc.

You may say, "Hey, grow a thicker skin." I say religious intolerance. For every loud-mouthed, overbearing Christian zealot, there's five quiet, respectful, polite and intelligent Christians. To make off-hand (usually hit and run) comments about Christians being delusional, whacko, ignorant, their God being false...it's highly insulting, and we get to see plenty of it in General.

I think you are talking out of your arse.

I can think of (one or two) people that might act that way, but they are just as popular with their Atheist 'brethren' as they are with their religious opposition. The 'average' Atheist, much like the 'average' theist, is almost never typified by the extremely loud intolerant minority.

I think it's more of the opposite.

I can think of only a few handful of posters who could debate Religion sensibily and rationally (on both sides) and scores more who can't (again, on both sides.)

You may say, "Hey, grow a thicker skin." I say religious intolerance.

"Oh, waaaah!" Where is the whambulance when it's needed?

debate Religion sensibily and rationally

I do believe that's an oxymoron.

I do believe that's an oxymoron.

thanks for proving my point. ;)

you are one of the few I will miss, don't think for a minute you are in the majority of anything around here.

You will honestly be missed. Another couple of the right people go, there'll be little enough reason for me to stay. End of an era, maybe. :(

Shame to see you go. I think you make me a better person.

Don't be afraid to keep in touch. *sniffle*

thanks for proving my point. ;)

It's not a bad point to belong to. I see no reason to entertain religious notions, so of course I give them no merit. So many of these oh, so persecuted Internet religionists cry and cry for respect - I'm not sorry that I cannot respect something so ludicrous.

Please. It's gotten pretty bad around here. Not neccessarily in terms of shouting down people for what they believe in (though there are quite a few who have taken to just that recently), but in snarky, insensitive comments. There will be a thread about religion and every atheist and his mother just HAVE to drop a comment about Christians being delusional, the fairy god in the sky, etc. etc.

You may say, "Hey, grow a thicker skin." I say religious intolerance. For every loud-mouthed, overbearing Christian zealot, there's five quiet, respectful, polite and intelligent Christians. To make off-hand (usually hit and run) comments about Christians being delusional, whacko, ignorant, their God being false...it's highly insulting, and we get to see plenty of it in General.

I'm an Atheist. That's no secret. But, I can't think of many occassions on which I (or my mother) have talked about Christians being delusional (there has been at least one occassion, because I think 'delusion' is an important argument, with reference to religion).

To be an Atheist (or even Agnostic) is to be the outsider, maybe a little less here, where we can express our 'beliefs' a little more safely.

Why does the Atheist constantly have to defend his (or her) 'decision' to be an Atheist? Why is this the one case where we pressure the person who DOESN'T blindly accept the story?

Do you believe in fairies? If not - WHY not?

I don't think you are noticing how tipped the scale really is against the Atheist. In terms of social expectation, social treatment, even in terms of the law. You say "For every loud-mouthed, overbearing Christian zealot, there's five quiet, respectful, polite and intelligent Christians..." but you ignore the fact that the same is true of the Atheists/Agnostics.

The idea that there is some kind of NS Atheist conspiracy is laughable. Or would be, if it wasn't sad.

It's not a bad point to belong to. I see no reason to entertain religious notions, so of course I give them no merit. So many of these oh, so persecuted Internet religionists cry and cry for respect - I'm not sorry that I cannot respect something so ludicrous.

It's not even a matter of 'respecting' religion - it's a matter of toleration.

Some people have religious directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have political directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have sexuality directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have different coloured skin to 'the majority'.

The idea is to treat those people as we would expect (actually, probably better than we expect...) to be treated.

To be an Atheist (or even Agnostic) is to be the outsider

That very much depends on where you live. It isn't in any way an outsider position where I live. Maybe that's the problem all the religionists from the US have; they go on an international forum and all of a sudden they discover that religion isn't a "va de soi" everywhere, and are exposed to the same attitudes that have pushed at least large parts of Western Europe into predominant secularism. Post-modernity is new to them, perhaps.

It's not even a matter of 'respecting' religion - it's a matter of toleration.

Some people have religious directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have political directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have sexuality directions that differ from 'the majority'. Some people have different coloured skin to 'the majority'.

The idea is to treat those people as we would expect (actually, probably better than we expect...) to be treated.

The thing is that religion is not a personal trait. It's an opinion. I can respect people, but religion? "Hate the sin, not the sinner". I wonder why they don't think it's fun when it's applied to them...

That very much depends on where you live. It isn't in any way an outsider position where I live. Maybe that's the problem all the religionists from the US have; they go on an international forum and all of a sudden they discover that religion isn't a "va de soi" everywhere, and are exposed to the same attitudes that have pushed at least large parts of Western Europe into predominant secularism. Post-modernity is new to them, perhaps.

The numerical majority of NS posters still favours Americans. The base of the forum is the UK, and I suspect that is the second largest catchment by quite a distance. Both are basically 'Christian' nations... and, even though the UK has largely been less 'extremist' about it's religiosity (although that seems to, unfortunately, be changing), it is still nominally Christian.

Yes, my experience of being oppressed by 'Christianity' (for which I blame certain 'Christians', not the faith they adhere to) got much more intense after I moved to this rebel state, but I was already considered a religious 'outsider' in the UK - just with less vehemence attached to that.

Well Smunk, hope you enjoy your breather...don't know why you care what some of these people have to say. One of them in particular is an outright anti-Semite and religion-hater...no pretense of tolerance there.

Seriously...the forum hasn't changed all that much. There are your regulars who tend to actually be capable of debate, and you have your fundamentalist (whatevers) who just like the chance to froth at the mouth.

Fuck them. And down with the pity parties.

The thing is that religion is not a personal trait. It's an opinion. I can respect people, but religion? "Hate the sin, not the sinner". I wonder why they don't think it's fun when it's applied to them...

'A religion' is a learned behaviour. But, 'being religious' might be something we are born to. Thus, 'religion' may well be 'a personal trait', although the specific orientation it expresses may be less innate.

Take your best guess.

:confused: I'm lost. what is the one side?

'A religion' is a learned behaviour. But, 'being religious' might be something we are born to.

Nuh-uh! I know several people who have been cured of their religious tendencies. They didn't have to wallow in ignorance...

I personally don't care about someone elses's religious beliefs. In any way. Total disinterest. Sorry. So I stay out of the religious threads, because not only do I know very little on the subject, I have zero interest when it comes to learning more.

I'm an atheist. But I also don't talk about atheism.

I'm tolerant of people's beliefs...but some just aren't ones I feel the need to discuss.

Nuh-uh! I know several people who have been cured of their religious tendencies. They didn't have to wallow in ignorance...

I've seen the same 'argument' applied to a number of other 'personal traits'... it's never really worked for me.

I've seen the same 'argument' applied to a number of other 'personal traits'... it's never really worked for me.

Oooh....

It's not a bad point to belong to. I see no reason to entertain religious notions, so of course I give them no merit. So many of these oh, so persecuted Internet religionists cry and cry for respect - I'm not sorry that I cannot respect something so ludicrous.
See, this is what tolerance is about. Even if you don't understand, care about, agree with, or want to hear about what others think, you should not treat them like shit.

Why does the Atheist constantly have to defend his (or her) 'decision' to be an Atheist?
That depends on where you live. In the city where I live that's not the case. Nor am I as a Christian frequently pushed into defending my beliefs.

Maybe that's the problem all the religionists from the US have; they go on an international forum and all of a sudden they discover that religion isn't a "va de soi" everywhere, and are exposed to the same attitudes that have pushed at least large parts of Western Europe into predominant secularism. Post-modernity is new to them, perhaps.
Secularism is not the same as atheism. Christians outnumber atheists in Western Europe. We just don't make so much of an emotional or political mass movement out of it.

I'm tolerant of people's beliefs...

The problem seems to stem from them thinking that tolerance somehow means they get to go uncriticised for their opinions. I can tolerate religious people, they shouldn't be discriminated against or persecuted or barred from being religious or somehow have less rights than anyone else, but respect their nonsense and entertain it? Hardly, especially since most of the nonsense has as an ultimate goal not to tolerate others - me, for an instance. So I fight their ideas - that doesn't mean I fight their right to have them. On the other hand, they tend to fight my right to have mine. So I'm still holier than them. :p

See, this is what tolerance is about. Even if you don't understand, care about, agree with, or want to hear about what others think, you should not treat them like shit. Dismissing their beliefs is not the same as treating them like shit.

When you have a debate, and someone whips out their holy book and says, 'Well, I disagree because it says here that blah blah blah", that religious book does not make said opinion gold.

Sorry, if I don't buy your religious explanation, and the only proof you can provide is your faith, you've got an 'opinion'. That's it. And when we're discussing FACTS, well, opinions get short shrift.

I can be quite tolerant of the religious views of other people. I won't go after them for believing what they do. But I will not accept their beliefs as any more important than any other opinion based on faith, rather than fact.

The problem seems to stem from them thinking that tolerance somehow means they get to go uncriticised for their opinions. I can tolerate religious people, they shouldn't be discriminated against or persecuted or barred from being religious or somehow have less rights than anyone else, but respect their nonsense and entertain it? Hardly, especially since most of the nonsense has as an ultimate goal not to tolerate others - me, for an instance. So I fight their ideas - that doesn't mean I fight their right to have them. On the other hand, they tend to fight might right to have mine. So I'm still holier than them. :p

I've got your back on this one.

I've seen the same 'argument' applied to a number of other 'personal traits'...

No shit!

When you have a debate, and someone whips out their holy book and says, 'Well, I disagree because it says here that blah blah blah", that religious book does not make said opinion gold.

I can be quite tolerant of the religious views of other people. I won't go after them for believing what they do. But I will not accept their beliefs as any more important than any other opinion based on faith, rather than fact.
I agree entirely. Using Bible quotes as justification for political views does not and should not work on atheists.

I've got your back on this one.
What is this, Red Alert Paintballing?

No shit!
What's that flying over your head?

What's that flying over your head?

The same thing that I just saw fly over yours and I had to duck for.

What is this, Red Alert Paintballing? No it's "you've absolutely got it right, I agree".


What's that flying over your head?That whooshing sound you hear is actually what you missed from the original post. God, you people need to get your irony metres fixed.

Smunkee it's unfortunate that you're leaving, I think the board will be worse off without you, but your call. Hope you stop by again.

I thought I should add my two cents...

I was raised in a Christian home, but my parents let me make the choice as to whether or not I wanted to be a Christian or join another religion or simply not be part of any religion. after a lot of reading and talking to lots of different people I decided that I was going to be a Christian, and I am happy with my choice. My faith is my own and it is very special to me.
There are a lot of things that I disagree with that the Christian church believes and holds in its doctrine, but that does not stop me from having a faith of my own. I think that it is important to always respect other peoples beliefs and opinions, even when I don't agree. I think that it is a little silly to expect that a faith can be proven by facts. Faith is faith, it was not meant to be rational.

Must you leave? We have so few female libertarians on here as it is. :/

Must you leave? We have so few females as it is.

Fixed.

The problem seems to stem from them thinking that tolerance somehow means they get to go uncriticised for their opinions. I can tolerate religious people, they shouldn't be discriminated against or persecuted or barred from being religious or somehow have less rights than anyone else, but respect their nonsense and entertain it? Hardly, especially since most of the nonsense has as an ultimate goal not to tolerate others - me, for an instance. So I fight their ideas - that doesn't mean I fight their right to have them. On the other hand, they tend to fight my right to have mine. So I'm still holier than them. :p

What if I tolerated your homosexual lifestyle in the sense that you tolerate religious people, but at the same time, I criticised you by saying all this negative crap about being homosexual, would that or would that not lead to me being called an intolerant religious bigot? I know fair and well, if I did in fact do that, i'd be hammered from all directions by everyone and their mom. But its wierd, because I could be supportive of humans rights for homosexuals, but then still face that double standard rule, where as if i speak out against it then I am an intolerant bigot. Yet I never say that about anyone that makes fun of my faith.

What if I tolerated your homosexual lifestyle...

See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists. Not only do you call it a "homosexual lifestyle", you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.

What if I tolerated your homosexual lifestyle in the sense that you tolerate religious people, but at the same time, I criticised you by saying all this negative crap about being homosexual, would that or would that not lead to me being called an intolerant religious bigot? I know fair and well, if I did in fact do that, i'd be hammered from all directions by everyone and their mom. But its wierd, because I could be supportive of humans rights for homosexuals, but then still face that double standard rule, where as if i speak out against it then I am an intolerant bigot. Yet I never say that about anyone that makes fun of my faith.

Difference being, you don't chose to be gay. You do make a conscious choice to believe in the invisible sky fairy.

Also noone has ever been gayed to death. They have however been burned at the stake. Also no one ever tries to convert you gay, mostly because it's not possible. When was the last time you say a gay pride parade "witness" people?

See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists. Not only do you call it a "homosexual lifestyle", you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.

actually not all "religionists" are that way.

That very much depends on where you live. It isn't in any way an outsider position where I live. Maybe that's the problem all the religionists from the US have; they go on an international forum and all of a sudden they discover that religion isn't a "va de soi" everywhere, and are exposed to the same attitudes that have pushed at least large parts of Western Europe into predominant secularism. Post-modernity is new to them, perhaps.

I'd say what is surprising to them is just how good some people are at reinforcing the stereotype of European as self-satisfied ass.

See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists. Not only do you call it a "homosexual lifestyle", you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.

You don't see any irony, here?

"...something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever..."

You are claiming it is 'a choice', that one can decide to be religious or not. I don't think I've ever seen that proved. Yes - people can change their religious orientation, but is it not eminently possible that some people are just 'born that way', with a greater tendency to BE religious in the first place?

Also - of course - the "...decided to believe in for no good reason..." must be opinion... I'm sure that many religious people have very good reasons for their faith - even if you wouldn't accept their reasons for yourself.

You express discontent at someone using the 'wrong' phrasing for your sexuality 'choices', but you fail to pay them even the same courtesy for their religious choice.

I believe in freedom to live whichever sexuality is native to your flesh. I also believe in freedom to follow whichever god you choose (or none).

Where those two things are not conflicting, I think we should treat each other with respect... don't you?

That whooshing sound you hear is actually what you missed from the original post. God, you people need to get your irony metres fixed.

Given some of the people on this forum, what would be clearly an ironic statement could in fact be completely serious. Though I will have to agree with this, people should also learn when someone is being sarcastic. Though in the end I think an eyeroll smilie helps a great deal with the aforementioned crazies that appear on NS.

actually not all "religionists" are that way.

I am aware of that - I live in a country where the former state church agreed to perform gay marriages and that supported and hosted exhibitions like Ecce Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29). However, that they deserve kudos for doing something sane like that is telling and doesn't mean I think their stories are any more respectable. Their behaviour is, though.

I'd say what is surprising to them is just how good some people are at reinforcing the stereotype of European as self-satisfied ass.

Beacons on hills must shine, shine, shine! Shine like the moon!

What if I tolerated your homosexual lifestyle in the sense that you tolerate religious people, but at the same time, I criticised you by saying all this negative crap about being homosexual, would that or would that not lead to me being called an intolerant religious bigot?

According to many Christians it does not matter how well you live your life, how much you care for the less fortunate and so on and so on - if you do not embrace Jesus you will go to hell - just like a piece of filth. We are supposed to tolerate that as a religious belief.

However, when people wish to turn this around and say that no matter how decent you behave, no matter how much you care for the poor and so on and so on - "if you are Christian you are filth", those same Christians get mad.

Why that double standard ?

Fixed.
Also true. :)

Difference being, you don't chose to be gay.


Some people might. Can you prove no one has ever chosen to 'be gay'?


You do make a conscious choice to believe in the invisible sky fairy.


Can you prove it is (always) a 'conscious choice'? Can you prove that some people are not just 'born that way'?


Also noone has ever been gayed to death.


No one has ever been 'religioned' to death either.


They have however been burned at the stake.


People have been killed for being religious. People have been killed for being gay.


Also no one ever tries to convert you gay,


Again, I wonder if you can prove this to be 100%.


...mostly because it's not possible.

And this.

You express discontent at someone using the 'wrong' phrasing for your sexuality 'choices', but you fail to pay them even the same courtesy for their religious choice.

That's exactly the point. Dishing out to them what they dole might make them think. Coddling them I gave up on years ago.

You don't see any irony, here?

"...something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever..."

You are claiming it is 'a choice', that one can decide to be religious or not. I don't think I've ever seen that proved. Yes - people can change their religious orientation, but is it not eminently possible that some people are just 'born that way', with a greater tendency to BE religious in the first place? Seriously? That is the weirdest thing I think I've ever heard. Do you really believe this? That being religious is genetic in some way?

Odd.

Also - of course - the "...decided to believe in for no good reason..." must be opinion... I'm sure that many religious people have very good reasons for their faith - even if you wouldn't accept their reasons for yourself.

You express discontent at someone using the 'wrong' phrasing for your sexuality 'choices', but you fail to pay them even the same courtesy for their religious choice.

I believe in freedom to live whichever sexuality is native to your flesh. I also believe in freedom to follow whichever god you choose (or none).

Where those two things are not conflicting, I think we should treat each other with respect... don't you?
I don't get it...are you saying you really think religion isn't a choice? Or is it? And is being homosexual a choice? Or isn't it? What the heck???

There is no 'freedom' or 'belief' involved in your sexuality. It just is.

Religion is not the same thing. You learn it. You aren't born that way.

According to many Christians it does not matter how well you live your life, how much you care for the less fortunate and so on and so on - if you do not embrace Jesus you will go to hell - just like a piece of filth. We are supposed to tolerate that as a religious belief.

However, when people wish to turn this around and say that no matter how decent you behave, no matter how much you care for the poor and so on and so on - "if you are Christian you are filth", many Christians get mad.

Testify! I'm supposed to read about people like me "they shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them!" (or whatever) and go "hmm, what a respectable opinion that I must not fight or ridicule!". Nuts to that!

Given some of the people on this forum, what would be clearly an ironic statement could in fact be completely serious. Though I will have to agree with this, people should also learn when someone is being sarcastic. Though in the end I think an eyeroll smilie helps a great deal with the aforementioned crazies that appear on NS.

Agreed. I suppose I'm just used to Fass' brand of irony and sarcasm.

So much for studying, this headache just won't let me focus.

That's exactly the point. Dishing out to them what they dole might make them think. Coddling them I gave up on years ago.

But, the more salient point is that you are attacking ALL religious people, for flaws you have perceived in some people, not all religious. Did Smunkee 'dole out' what you are throwing back?

This thread is about Smunkee leaving, because she feels like some of the NS posters are wearing anti-religion jackboots to the party, and taking potshots at anything with a cross necklace. Ironically, you have turned it into a thread about why you think a generic policy of anti-religion is justified... reinforcing the point.

Difference being, you don't chose to be gay. You do make a conscious choice to believe in the invisible sky fairy.

Also noone has ever been gayed to death. They have however been burned at the stake. Also no one ever tries to convert you gay, mostly because it's not possible. When was the last time you say a gay pride parade "witness" people?

I always call BS on people choosing to be gay. I admit that perhaps some do not, but I have known globs of people to be gay, then straight, then bi, then gay and so forth. They were willingly choosing what they want to be. So, forgive me for making a blanket statement there.

for your second part, I do realize religion has done bad, but holding that over every religious person is rather silly. Am I trying to burn you at the stake? Am I trying to convert you? But at the same time, religion has done a number of good things. When was the last time a gay parade joined the abolitionist and civil rights movements? Its rather ridiculous to argue back and forth over it, because I am sure we can find good and bad on both sides. The point I was trying to make is that there is a double standard, especially when it comes to Christianity. There is some with Islam, but not as much. example, a preacher speaks out against the violent side of modern islam, and he is branded a hate monger. But when a Imam says that christians are dogs and need to die, people would defend him by saying its his right to free speach to say such things. I am tired of BS like that. Especially on here, where it seems like christianity is enemy #1 to most people.

But, the more salient point is that you are attacking ALL religious people, for flaws you have perceived in some people, not all religious.

I'm attacking all religion. Not all religious people.

Did Smunkee 'dole out' what you are throwing back?

Oh, she doled out in that thread as well as she got. She's not an innocent victim of mean old atheists here, not by a long shot.

This thread is about Smunkee leaving, because she feels like some of the NS posters are wearing anti-religion jackboots to the party, and taking potshots at anything with a cross necklace. Ironically, you have turned it into a thread about why you think a generic policy of anti-religion is justified... reinforcing the point.

And I've already said that I have no regrets about that.

Seriously? That is the weirdest thing I think I've ever heard. Do you really believe this? That being religious is genetic in some way?

Odd.

I don't get it...are you saying you really think religion isn't a choice? Or is it? And is being homosexual a choice? Or isn't it? What the heck???

There is no 'freedom' or 'belief' involved in your sexuality. It just is.

Religion is not the same thing. You learn it. You aren't born that way.

One learns a religion. But, does one learn 'religion'?

We can map religious experiences in a brain. Might some people not have a brain 'design' that is more likely to process those experiences? I don't have the answer - but, if there can be tendencies towards addictions, why can't there be 'tendency' towards 'being religious'?

On the subject of homosexuality as a 'choice', my personal opinion is that sexual orientation is something that just 'is', not something you 'do' or 'choose'. But, on the other hand - maybe some people DO choose... I'd hate to make a generalisation that said it never happened.

One learns a religion. But, does one learn 'religion'?

We can map religious experiences in a brain. Might some people not have a brain 'design' that is more likely to process those experiences? I don't have the answer - but, if there can be tendencies towards addictions, why can't there be 'tendency' towards 'being religious'?

On the subject of homosexuality as a 'choice', my personal opinion is that sexual orientation is something that just 'is', not something you 'do' or 'choose'. But, on the other hand - maybe some people DO choose... I'd hate to make a generalisation that said it never happened.
Generalisations do not disallow the possibility of variation. They simply phrase variations as the minority of cases.

Anyway, how the hell did I get drawn into a religious discussion?

*runs*

According to many Christians it does not matter how well you live your life, how much you care for the less fortunate and so on and so on - if you do not embrace Jesus you will go to hell - just like a piece of filth. We are supposed to tolerate that as a religious belief.

However, when people wish to turn this around and say that no matter how decent you behave, no matter how much you care for the poor and so on and so on - "if you are Christian you are filth", those same Christians get mad.

Why that double standard ?

Like I said, I am tired of any double standard. I agree, if a christian dishes out shit, then should be able to take shit back in return. But if I am just talking about my beliefs, not trying to convert anyone, not criticizing anyone, but just stating what i believe, why should I have to hear the loads of BS that people say. For instance, Fass there, I was in a religion thread and he posted a picture of something like "Things you believe in as a kid" and it was to the effect that Christians are like mindless little children for believing in God. There was no reason to post that other than to be rude, but i didn't see anyone decry that. However, if I were to post in a serious thread about something like homosexuality, and threw a derogatory picture in there, I'd be labeled as something evil right away.

I always call BS on people choosing to be gay. I admit that perhaps some do not, but I have known globs of people to be gay, then straight, then bi, then gay and so forth. They were willingly choosing what they want to be. So, forgive me for making a blanket statement there.
You have considered the possibility that they are bisexual and switch between liking males and females? Or that they are flat out lying and are confused about their orientation? As insightful as your allegedly vast anecdotal evidence is on the matter, sorry, but most of us do not choose to be gay.

It would be interesting to see if there is any research on this topic. I'd greatly like to explore that idea further.

What, comparing addiction to religious experience?

One learns a religion. But, does one learn 'religion'?

We can map religious experiences in a brain. Might some people not have a brain 'design' that is more likely to process those experiences? I don't have the answer - but, if there can be tendencies towards addictions, why can't there be 'tendency' towards 'being religious'?

On the subject of homosexuality as a 'choice', my personal opinion is that sexual orientation is something that just 'is', not something you 'do' or 'choose'. But, on the other hand - maybe some people DO choose... I'd hate to make a generalisation that said it never happened.

It would be interesting to see if there is any research on this topic. I'd greatly like to explore that idea further.

Generalisations do not disallow the possibility of variation. They simply phrase variations as the minority of cases.

Anyway, how the hell did I get drawn into a religious discussion?

*runs*

Je devrais te suivre, soudainement j'ai eu mal à la tête aussi...

You have considered the possibility that they are bisexual and switch between liking males and females? Or that they are flat out lying and are confused about their orientation? As insightful as your allegedly limitless anecdotal evidence is on the matter, sorry, but most of us do not choose to be gay.

But in your own statement, there is room for some to choose whether or not they are gay.

You have considered the possibility that they are bisexual and switch between liking males and females? Or that they are flat out lying and are confused about their orientation? As insightful as your allegedly limitless anecdotal evidence is on the matter, sorry, but most of us do not choose to be gay.

I didn't choose to be bi. I couldn't help that dark-haired, petite woman made me salivate, and that guys also turn my crank.

I hate that whole 'choose your sexuality' bullshit. Really...when did y'all decide to 'go straight'?

I'm attacking all religion. Not all religious people.


You might want to text your petard. I hear it is planning to hoist you.

"See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists... you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.

You specify the believer, not the belief.


And I've already said that I have no regrets about that.

Regrets are not such a worry. Intolerance is the bad.

Je devrais te suivre, soudainement j'ai eu mal à la tête aussi...
Run away, run away with me.... :D

What, comparing addiction to religious experience?

No, seeing if some people are wired to feel religious experiences, while others are not.

Damn, I almost had you...

If you want me, you'd better try another method of capture! "Boring my pants off" is really JUST an expression :D

Anyway, how the hell did I get drawn into a religious discussion?

*runs*

Damn, I almost had you...

But in your own statement, there is room for some to choose whether or not they are gay.
If this is the case it is probably a minority. As I said, it's more likely to be individuals confused about their orientation or the type of bisexual that variably likes females or males more.

I didn't choose to be bi. I couldn't help that dark-haired, petite woman made me salivate, and that guys also turn my crank.

I hate that whole 'choose your sexuality' bullshit. Really...when did y'all decide to 'go straight'?
Indeed. I wonder what makes anyone think you'd actually choose to be gay? :confused:

I didn't choose to be bi. I couldn't help that dark-haired, petite woman made me salivate, and that guys also turn my crank.

I hate that whole 'choose your sexuality' bullshit. Really...when did y'all decide to 'go straight'?

Ask my grandma why she decided to be a lesbian after being married so many years to a few different men. She choose to go from men to women, and hasn't looked back.


Oh and dark haired, petite women make me salivate too ;)

Run away, run away with me.... :D

Oh, my Christian God, not Snorah! Anything but!

But in your own statement, there is room for some to choose whether or not they are gay.

Try it. 'Go gay', just for a day, m'kay? Tell us how it goes.

If you want me, you'd better try another method of capture! "Boring my pants off" is really JUST an expression :D

... but a great lead to a wonderful Idea...

*attempts to pants Neesika!* :D

I wonder if smunkee expected her "farewell thread" to be this... active. :p

Regrets are not such a worry. Intolerance is the bad.

I don't have to tolerate fairy tales. That's what this boils down to. I get to mock them as much as I want, no matter the whambulances called to the scenes.

Reason shrieked when Smunkee left.

Try it. 'Go gay', just for a day, m'kay? Tell us how it goes.

No, please, no! We have standards, you know. You can't just hand out invitations like that!

It would be interesting to see if there is any research on this topic. I'd greatly like to explore that idea further.

A quick look around suggests I'm not the first to wander into this particular territory of thought...

"Drawing on major new findings in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, and comparative anthropology, the two books portray human religiosity as a product of innate psychological predispositions programmed into our brains by the selective pressures of evolution. Beliefs, doctrines, practices, rituals, mystical experiences, moral systems, communal structures—everything about religion can be explained, according to Boyer and Pyysiainen, by using the latest advances in evolutionary theory and cognitive science.

Two recent texts on the subject: "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought" by Pascal Boyer and "How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion" by Ilkka Pyysiainen...

http://www.kellybulkeley.com/articles/reviews_boyer_pyy.htm

Try it. 'Go gay', just for a day, m'kay? Tell us how it goes.

Tried it once when i was a freshman in high school, didn't like it, won't try it again. Although if i wanted to, i could make myself believe that I liked it and go gay, but I'm not :p

I don't have to tolerate fairy tales. That's what this boils down to. I get to mock them as much as I want, no matter the whambulances called to the scenes.

The 'fairytales' are irrelevent... they will vary from person to person. Perhaps you should be tolerant towards the people, no?

No, please, no! We have standards, you know. You can't just hand out invitations like that!

see... it's not only a choice, but it's also elitist! ;) :D :D

No, please, no! We have standards, you know. You can't just hand out invitations like that!

You do? Then why did they let you in?

The 'fairytales' are irrelevent... they will vary from person to person. Perhaps you should be tolerant towards the people, no?

Again, you confuse my mocking their nonsense as somehow being intolerant of them. Opinions are not sacrosanct - they are not beyond reproach.

If you want me, you'd better try another method of capture! "Boring my pants off" is really JUST an expression :D

Almost had you in a religious debate. I'm not sure debating the neural ramifications of religion is ever going to be a 'top ten seduction ideas' best-seller.... :)

see... it's not only a choice, but it's also elitist! ;) :D :D

Would you have me be anything else?

You do? Then why did they let you in?

I suck a mean cock, and I can accessorise with plastic bags and make them dazzle if need be.

Again, you confuse my mocking their nonsense as somehow being intolerant of them. Opinions are not sacrosanct - they are not beyond reproach.

Again - I've seen the same arguments made for other 'personal choices'....

You do? Then why did they let you in?

Evidently the qualifications are 'elitist asshat'. I'm kinda glad that I don't qualify ;)

Evidently the qualifications are 'elitist asshat'. I'm kinda glad that I don't qualify ;)

So am I. :)

I suck a mean cock, and I can accessorise with plastic bags and make them dazzle if need be.

Well, each to their own. (shrugs)

Again - I've seen the same arguments made for other 'personal choices'....

And I've seen the same irony be lost on you countless times by now.

Ask my grandma why she decided to be a lesbian after being married so many years to a few different men. She choose to go from men to women, and hasn't looked back. Most likely she never really expected to be attracted to the men she married, and when she finally DID find attraction, well, why WOULD she look back? You make the assumption that she married men because she was sexually attracted to them. I don't see why you'd assume that, at all.


Oh and dark haired, petite women make me salivate too ;)
And when did you consciously choose to be attracted to dark haird, petite women?

Evidently the qualifications are 'elitist asshat'. I'm kinda glad that I don't qualify ;)

Ah, nice. You toss in personal attacks because someone doesn't feel it necessary to give your religious beliefs any more creedence than they deserve. Talk about asshattery.

Most likely she never really expected to be attracted to the men she married, and when she finally DID find attraction, well, why WOULD she look back? You make the assumption that she married men because she was sexually attracted to them. I don't see why you'd assume that, at all. No i make the assumption that she had sex with men, had three children, and only recently(with in the last 15 years) choose to be a lesbian.


And when did you consciously choose to be attracted to dark haird, petite women?

After I realized that blondes with big boobs are a bunch of bumbling 'tards. ;)

No i make the assumption that she had sex with men, had three children

Lots of gays have been in heterosexual marriages and have had children.

The reason why is so transparently obvious that it should not have to be said to you.

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I would like to know exactly what was meant by this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12491889&postcount=36) but I am sure it's better left alone.

Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?

I like you very much. We agree mostly but have times when I do not see things your way. I appreciate your honesty and hope you will come back soon. You must ignore those who cannot see there's more than one way to live.

Lots of gays have been in heterosexual marriages and have had children.

The reason why is so transparently obvious that it should not have to be said to you.

I think he'll need it said anyway.

The obvious has been so lost, I despair of it every being found.

Ah, nice. You toss in personal attacks because someone doesn't feel it necessary to give your religious beliefs any more creedence than they deserve. Talk about asshattery.

No I am saying what ever one else(save a few here and there) is thinking. Fass is nothing BUT an asshole to me, or well in general to most everyone. I'm just pointing it out. :)

Lots of gays have been in heterosexual marriages and have had children.

The reason why is so transparently obvious that it should not have to be said to you.

Except she did all of that during the sexual revolution. If she was going to be openly gay at anytime, wouldn't it have been then? I'm not sure, but I'll call her and ask her exaclty why she waited until the late 80s to be a lesbian, and if she choose it or not.

I suck a mean cock, and I can accessorise with plastic bags and make them dazzle if need be.
Only mean ones? what about nice ones... damn it's always the nice ones that are left out... :( :p

Even if being gay is not a choice, you do have a choice to act on the attraction yeah? So that sense you do make it your lifestyle since you could choose to not engage in such behaviour.
The question is, why should we not?

No I am saying what ever one else(save a few here and there) is thinking. Fass is nothing BUT an asshole to me, or well in general to most everyone. I'm just pointing it out. :)

Fass is sarcastic, acerbic, intelligent and nuanced. He is also a member of a class of people who are continuously attacked for religious reasons, a class of people that it is STILL okay to discriminate against. Much as I refuse to give any sort of credence to racist bullshit, motivated by any beliefs whatsoever, he refuses to give credence to homophobic bullshit. However, when Fass brings up legitimate concerns about the link between religion and homophobia...suddenly, he has a 'gay agenda' and those concerns are dismissed. Perhaps only straight people should speak on behalf of homosexuals, in order for the issue to be taken seriously?

No. Those attitudes don't deserve respect. Full stop. If they happen to form part of your religious beliefs, expect those beliefs to be questioned, and yes, even made fun of. Being intolerant of intolerance is, in my mind, quite an acceptable position to take.

Fass can come across as very abrasive. So can many of us. But for some reason, when people discuss the 'NS Assholes', he bears the brunt of the critique. I'm a little offended here. Some of us are as big, or even bigger assholes than him...do we have to be gay to get some fucking respect around here?

The question is, why should we not?

And this is the crux of the attitude that deserves ridicule:

"Because it's wrong."

Oh really, why's that?

"My religion says so."

*points and laughs*

Even if being gay is not a choice, you do have a choice to act on the attraction yeah? So that sense you do make it your lifestyle since you could choose to not engage in such behaviour.

I thought I had made it clear to you that I'm not buying your Islamist troll shtick months ago. Well, I'm doing so now.

Only mean ones? what about nice ones... damn it's always the nice ones that are left out... :( :p

Oh, I can squeeze them in, too. Better?

Self control, self-respect, doing whats right come to mind. I could have the attraction to have sex with a dog, a child, or someone other than my wife. Are you saying its ok to act on those attractions too?

Shut up.

And Philosophy...why did you cop out?

Shut up.

And Philosophy...why did you cop out?

Dignity. :)

I thought I had made it clear to you that I'm not buying your Islamist troll shtick months ago. Well, I'm doing so now.



way to dodge the question:rolleyes:

Self control, self-respect,
Which I do not forfeit in so doing. In fact, it may even reinforce the latter.

doing whats right come to mind.
It contributes to my bliss and it harms no one. So what is wrong about it?

I could have the attraction to have sex with a dog, a child, or someone other than my wife. Are you saying its ok to act on those attractions too?
Explain how a relationship with any of these is analogous to one with a consenting adult male.

Fass is sarcastic, acerbic, intelligent and nuanced. He is also a member of a class of people who are continuously attacked for religious reasons, a class of people that it is STILL okay to discriminate against. Much as I refuse to give any sort of credence to racist bullshit, motivated by any beliefs whatsoever, he refuses to give credence to homophobic bullshit. However, when Fass brings up legitimate concerns about the link between religion and homophobia...suddenly, he has a 'gay agenda' and those concerns are dismissed. Perhaps only straight people should speak on behalf of homosexuals, in order for the issue to be taken seriously?

No. Those attitudes don't deserve respect. Full stop. If they happen to form part of your religious beliefs, expect those beliefs to be questioned, and yes, even made fun of. Being intolerant of intolerance is, in my mind, quite an acceptable position to take.

Fass can come across as very abrasive. So can many of us. But for some reason, when people discuss the 'NS Assholes', he bears the brunt of the critique. I'm a little offended here. Some of us are as big, or even bigger assholes than him...do we have to be gay to get some fucking respect around here?
TBH, I've never labeled anyone an NS Asshole. not Fass, not Lyric, not the Nazz or anyone. however, just because someone is part of any group, that doesn't mean they are exempt from any form of criticisim. not Religious, Lifestyle, Choices, Hair color, fashion... no group is free from that. however, just as Homosexuals are attacked, so are Religious groups. to say one is more persecuted than the other is wrong.

Fass has held his own, sometimes his methods are gruff and blunt, but he has given as good as he gets.

I know I'm on some people's "Asshole" list. I don't mind. as long as they treat me with respect, I will endevor to treat them with respect.

way to dodge the question:rolleyes:

No, way not to bite for your stale and unimaginative routine. Really, boring.

Oh, I can squeeze them in, too. Better?
as long as you're keeping a balanced diet... too much spicy stuff can lead to... ulcers... ;)

Shut up.



Fine. This isn't an issue that is debatable to me. I put my 2cents in, people can take it or leave it.

Fine. This isn't an issue that is debatable to me. I put my 2cents in, people can take it or leave it.
How about you address the points I raised?

Self control, self-respect, doing whats right come to mind. I could have the attraction to have sex with a dog, a child, or someone other than my wife. Are you saying its ok to act on those attractions too?

Self control and self respect have nothing to do with it.

And "doing what's right" depends solely on your definition of right and wrong. And probably on the source of that definition.

Make a compelling argument against it without using loaded language.

Self control, self-respect, doing whats right come to mind. I could have the attraction to have sex with a dog, a child, or someone other than my wife. Are you saying its ok to act on those attractions too?

Sex with a dog - cannot have 'informed consent'. Sex with a child cannot have 'informed consent'. Sex with someone other than your wife is fine if you, your wife, and your other boy or girlfriend agrees.

Self-control, self-respect and 'doing what is right' are only relevent if there is some reason to believe that what you are doing requires 'control', impacts' respect', or 'is not right'.

So - you have a lot of 'opinions' about the thing, but nothing that cannot be written off as completely subjective...?

Self control and self respect have nothing to do with it.

And "doing what's right" depends solely on your definition of right and wrong. And probably on the source of that definition.

Make a compelling argument against it without using loaded language.

Curses. Deus copied me, and did it in less words, and BEFORE I posted it. Clever bugger.

Curses. Deus copied me, and did it in less words, and BEFORE I posted it. Clever bugger.

My latent psychic abilities at work, I'm afraid.

So - you have a lot of 'opinions' about the thing, but nothing that cannot be written off as completely subjective...?

Welcome to the root of my problem with religious arguments.

Curses. Deus copied me, and did it in less words, and BEFORE I posted it. Clever bugger.
I beat you both to it. :rolleyes:

Hey, nice delete Soviestan...will telling you to shut up always end up with that as a result?

Welcome to the root of my problem with religious arguments.

and that is both FOR and AGAINST religion. ;)

and that is both FOR and AGAINST religion. ;)

Absolutely.

Hence the reason why religion should not be brought into an argument unless that argument is purely based on opinion.

I beat you both to it. :rolleyes:

Yes, but you clearly saw our posts, went back in time and tried to get in ahead of us. Post thief.

Absolutely.

Hence the reason why religion should not be brought into an argument unless that argument is purely based on opinion.

that and what the discussion of religion is about. I've seen too many threads here that start off with people asking for clarification and it ends up as an Attack/Refute the validity of said religion.

Yes, but you clearly saw our posts, went back in time and tried to get in ahead of us. Post thief.
Prove it. :p

:(

Sad to see you go - sorry if I'm one of the undesirables, by the way. I hope that I'm not, especially since I respect a great deal of what you say.

Hey, nice delete Soviestan...will telling you to shut up always end up with that as a result?
Too bad his post has been quoted multiple times. ;)

Generally? Slight underestimation there.
HOGAN!~Colonel Klink

See, there's exactly the reason I have so little patience for you religionists. Not only do you call it a "homosexual lifestyle", you attempt to compare it to something ludicrous you decided to believe in for no good reason whatsoever.
How can you make judgements on other people's private reasons? You;re being so closed-minded.

I am aware of that - I live in a country where the former state church agreed to perform gay marriages and that supported and hosted exhibitions like Ecce Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29). However, that they deserve kudos for doing something sane like that is telling and doesn't mean I think their stories are any more respectable. Their behaviour is, though.
Though you still feel the need to ridicule them? That's just slapping back the hand of reconciliation that they reach out with.

Beacons on hills must shine, shine, shine! Shine like the moon!
Your country is not as perfect as you may think.

I always call BS on people choosing to be gay. I admit that perhaps some do not, but I have known globs of people to be gay, then straight, then bi, then gay and so forth. They were willingly choosing what they want to be. So, forgive me for making a blanket statement there.
People don't choose to be gay.

But at the same time, religion has done a number of good things. When was the last time a gay parade joined the abolitionist and civil rights movements?
People also forget that almost every major charitable organisation in the west was set up by Christians. Fairtrade was also first created in the Netherlands by Christians.

Its rather ridiculous to argue back and forth over it, because I am sure we can find good and bad on both sides. The point I was trying to make is that there is a double standard, especially when it comes to Christianity.
No, it's not like that anymore. Once people were exposed to an actual Muslim poster, Soviestan, they got as hateful towards Islam as they are to Christianity.

I don't have to tolerate fairy tales. That's what this boils down to. I get to mock them as much as I want, no matter the whambulances called to the scenes.
How can you be so sure that you have a monopoly on the truth? What you are trying to justify here is hurting other people as much as you legally can. That's what makes you intolerant.

Fass is sarcastic, acerbic, intelligent and nuanced. He is also a member of a class of people who are continuously attacked for religious reasons, a class of people that it is STILL okay to discriminate against.
By his own admission he lives in a sufficiently secular society as to make that discrimination an extremely rare occurrence. Yet he feels the need to attack religious people who have done nothing to him simply because they believe something he doesn't. And we're being intolerant?

No. Those attitudes don't deserve respect. Full stop. If they happen to form part of your religious beliefs, expect those beliefs to be questioned, and yes, even made fun of. Being intolerant of intolerance is, in my mind, quite an acceptable position to take.
I agree, homophobia is as bad as racism. Do you know who famously said that? Desmond Tutu, a well known ignorant Christian bigot. :rolleyes:

Once people were exposed to an actual Muslim poster, Soviestan
Naaaah.

I agree, homophobia is as bad as racism.

That statement is missing the point entirely. "Fear of homos" is somewhat silly, but not evil. Declaring that homosexuality is wrong, without arguments besides "because it says so in my holy book", is what people get upset about.

Hey, nice delete Soviestan...will telling you to shut up always end up with that as a result?

No. It just isn't worth it in this case. I can present a clear and concise argument for why homosexuality is completely wrong. However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an. However if I do some intolerant secularists on here will just say "omgz trolling" or "omgz religion is teh stupid!1" which does nothing but make debate or discussion impossible. Anyone who wants to actually hear what I have to say instead of acting like a child and stick their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear la la" can TG me and I'll be happy to discuss it with them.

No. It just isn't worth it in this case. I can present a clear and concise argument for why homosexuality is completely wrong. However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an. However if I do some intolerant secularists on here will just say "omgz trolling" or "omgz religion is teh stupid!1" which does nothing but make debate or discussion impossible. Anyone who wants to actually hear what I have to say instead of acting like a child and stick their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear la la" can TG me and I'll be happy to discuss it with them.Uh...no thanks. That's really the whole point. I don't care what your religion, or anyone else's religion has to say on the matter. I really don't.

In fact, I don't give a flying shit what anyone wants to justify their homophobia with. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance...and yes, I am arrogant for believing my intolerance trumps yours.

But I'm fine with that.

Uh...no thanks. That's really the whole point. I don't care what your religion, or anyone else's religion has to say on the matter. I really don't.

In fact, I don't give a flying shit what anyone wants to justify their homophobia with. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance...and yes, I am arrogant for believing my intolerance trumps yours.

But I'm fine with that.

:rolleyes: thanks for proving my point.

Just ignore the jerks. A few intolerant irritants is no reason to leave for good. :(

What he said.

And look, I got tired of a select number of people here (who shall remain nameless), but do you know what I did? I just stopped debating with them.

Oh, and there's also a "Block User" or somesuch feature, if you're looking to just completely shun some people, Smunk. :p

Uh...no thanks. That's really the whole point. I don't care what your religion, or anyone else's religion has to say on the matter. I really don't.

In fact, I don't give a flying shit what anyone wants to justify their homophobia with. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance...and yes, I am arrogant for believing my intolerance trumps yours.

But I'm fine with that.


Good, because you're correct.

:rolleyes: thanks for proving my point.

That you've got nothing but an imaginary friend in the sky to back homophobia up with? Hey, no problem.

See, my point of view means people get to be who they are.

Yours would have them forced to live a lie.

See how my view trumps yours?

Good.

Alright, that does it.

*makes a houseload of special Hashijuana cookies for Sinuhue*






...Unless you want me to call you by your new name...

That you've got nothing but an imaginary friend in the sky to back homophobia up with? Hey, no problem.

See, my point of view means people get to be who they are.

Yours would have them forced to live a lie.

See how my view trumps yours?

Good.
No my point was that intolerant secularists stifle debate on these forums. you just further prove that with every post. good job.

No my point was that intolerant secularists stifle debate on these forums. you just further prove that with every post. good job.

I stifled a debate about the religious basis for homophobia?

*pats self on back*

...Unless you want me to call you by your new name...
I'll always be Sinuhue at heart ;)

I'll always be Sinuhue at heart ;)

Wait you're Sinuhue? I thought you got permabanned for posting gay porn or something. That must have been just weird rumour, or was it?

Wait you're Sinuhue? I thought you got permabanned for posting gay porn or something. That must have been just weird rumour, or was it?
Feigning surprise now? I certainly haven't been quiet about being Sinuhue....and my signature until very recently declared the fact.

The thing is, you are absolutely free to post all the drivel you want about how gays are evil, and horrible, and should be repressed, and how Allah says so. Please...go ahead...it won't be the first (or last) time. But you actually seem to expect that people are not going to go after that drivel...you actually seem to think that said drivel should be protected from attack.

You clearly need to reconsider how this forum works.

Feigning surprise now? I certainly haven't been quiet about being Sinuhue....and my signature until very recently declared the fact.

The thing is, you are absolutely free to post all the drivel you want about how gays are evil, and horrible, and should be repressed, and how Allah says so. Please...go ahead...it won't be the first (or last) time. But you actually seem to expect that people are not going to go after that drivel...you actually seem to think that said drivel should be protected from attack.

You clearly need to reconsider how this forum works.

I was just wondering if it was true you got banned for posting porn. No need to get all hostile.

I was just wondering if it was true you got banned for posting porn. No need to get all hostile.

This is nowhere near hostile.

This is nowhere near hostile.

If you aren't going to answer the question, its ok to say 'I'm not going to answer that' you don't have to try to change the subject.

I got to say that I am sorry to see Smunki go and that I kind of understand where she is coming from. I have no problem with people coming in and engaging in constructive criticism of religion and tearing apart of things like creationism or homophobia, heck I'll typicaly join in. However, there does seem to be an increase in people who will pop into religous threads just to mock people for their beliefs even when they are like Smunki and show no interest in forcing those beliefs on others and frankly such behavior is just dickish. I mean attacking something that is important to someone that they are in no way trying to force on you is just plain rude and intolerant. So what if it is something they chose, if it doesn't affect you and they aren't trying to force it on you going out of your way to come out of the blue to make fun of them for it is deplorable behavior.

Although to be frank it seems that people in general seem to be being more dickish around hear lately. I'm mean there have even been a number of people I rather respect who have gotten in to excchanges that I found rather suprising.

Personally, I've been around a while and feel that the religion-bashers have calmed down big time compared to when I first got here.

No. It just isn't worth it in this case. I can present a clear and concise argument for why homosexuality is completely wrong. However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an.
Can you do so without falling back on religion though? As I have mentioned in the past, refuting so-called divine laws is as easy as denying the deity's existence (or showing contradictions within the religion). At any rate, go ahead and make your argument - I am interested to see what exactly it will be.

it has been brought to my attention via a link in a comment in my blog that I left without notice and probably should have said goodbye or explained myself.

Sorry guys, I hope to rectify that with this thread, I am still gone-ish, I am hanging out in my region, so you can TG me, but I am just tired of General.

I understand General Forum Burnout. It happens. I've left General for a week or a month here and there, but I find my way back after a while. I hope the same is true for you, for our sakes! :)


It's depressing to me that people who claim tolerance can't be tolerant of my personal life choices, especially when they don't affect you in any way.

What does "tolerant" mean to you?

Around here, nobody has the power to actually stop you from living your life. They have the power to be angry or mean or outspoken about how they disagree with you. But they actually don't have any choice but to tolerate you and your lifestyle, because they simply can't stop you.


I am tired of the general attitude around here, so I am taking a break until certain undesirables leave.

If you have nice things to say, please do, I will subscribe to the thread, but probably won't reply.

I like ya, miss seeing you around, hope your family is well and happy.


Anyway, just so there is a topic at hand... why do so many people have trouble being tolerant of other people's life choices? is it because you would not choose it for yourself?
If you mean, why do I vocally and publicly object to the life choices of others, then the answer is that I do so because other people's life choices impact my life.

For instance, if another person chooses to rear their child to be a sexist drone, then I have to live in a world that has one more sexist drone roaming about and getting in my way.

If another person chooses to join a racist, homophobic church and become yet another person who walks around insisting that their racist, homophobic superstitions are really all about Gawd's Luv, then I have to put up with another annoying coward breathing my oxygen and taking up valuable space on my planet.

And so it goes.

But do I tolerate such people? Of course I do. I may talk to them. I may even speak harshly or (gasp) rudely at times. But I tolerate them and their shitty choices. I don't try to hurt them or their families. I don't try to kill them. I don't try to use force to compel them to obey my wishes. I may object to their choices, but I still tolerate those choices, and I even spend my personal time and money supporting organizations that fight for their right to make shitty choices.

How can you make judgements on other people's private reasons?

Same way you'd make judgments about other people's public reasons, I'd imagine.

Why should it be any harder to set and hold standards about people's private choices?

If somebody "privately" decides that rape is awesome and it's fun to torture puppies, are you really going to have a hard time judging them for those choices?

Personally, I don't give a fuck what "private reasons" somebody might have for, say, being a homophobe. Homophobia is still stupid.

No. It just isn't worth it in this case. I can present a clear and concise argument for why homosexuality is completely wrong. However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an. However if I do some intolerant secularists on here will just say "omgz trolling" or "omgz religion is teh stupid!1" which does nothing but make debate or discussion impossible. Anyone who wants to actually hear what I have to say instead of acting like a child and stick their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear la la" can TG me and I'll be happy to discuss it with them.

The problem most people will have is with the "However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an" part. I for instance do not share your religious belief, and therefor an argument based solely on said belief is unconvincing at best - and at worst may even promote a negative opinion of your religion. Yes, that corresponds nicely with what you yourself said - but it somehow sounds better to me ;)

What I, and many others would like to see, is some reasoning to why your religion is right on this issue, without using the circular "my religion is right because it says so". After all, you follow that religion - which implies you yourself agree with its statements.

I may even speak harshly or (gasp) rudely at times.

:eek:

Say it ain't so!

The problem most people will have is with the "However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an" part. I for instance do not share your religious belief, and therefor an argument based solely on said belief is unconvincing at best - and at worst may even promote a negative opinion of your religion. Yes, that corresponds nicely with what you yourself said - but it somehow sounds better to me ;)

What I, and many others would like to see, is some reasoning to why your religion is right on this issue, without using the circular "my religion is right because it says so". After all, you follow that religion - which implies you yourself agree with its statements.
Exactly.

I don't see any reason to let people off the hook simply because they invoke "faith" in their arguments.

Saying, "I believe X because my Gawd sez so" is empty. It's no different than saying, "I believe X because I feel like it." If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, the first step is to ACTUALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT. "Gawdsez!!!" is not an argument, and I do not see any reason to pretend that it is.

I've had some religious believers bitch that this shows a "lack of respect" or "lack of tolerance" for their beliefs. I say it's the opposite. I hold religious believers and their arguments to the same standards as everybody else. I don't see how it would be respectful for me to basically treat all religious believers like infants who are incapable of formulating legit arguments.

Exactly.

I don't see any reason to let people off the hook simply because they invoke "faith" in their arguments.

Saying, "I believe X because my Gawd sez so" is empty. It's no different than saying, "I believe X because I feel like it." If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, the first step is to ACTUALLY MAKE AN ARGUMENT. "Gawdsez!!!" is not an argument, and I do not see any reason to pretend that it is.

I've had some religious believers bitch that this shows a "lack of respect" or "lack of tolerance" for their beliefs. I say it's the opposite. I hold religious believers and their arguments to the same standards as everybody else. I don't see how it would be respectful for me to basically treat all religious believers like infants who are incapable of formulating legit arguments.

I don't think I have ever made an argument like that.

I don't think I have ever made an argument like that.
One of the #1 reasons I apply equal standards is because some of the best and brightest of General Forum are believers who are quite capable of forming cogent, logical, sound arguments, and who do not cry "intolerance!" whenever somebody expects them to support their claims. Proof that religious belief does not inherently render someone incapable of thinking. This is why it annoys me so much when SOME believers try to hide their flimsy claims behind the shield of their faith.

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. IN a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that one does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I do not seek to oppose for you is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that i tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

Thank you for highlighting the contradictions in the 'you're intolerant if you don't respect my religious beliefs, BIGOT!' argument.

To those who would say we must be "tolerant" of their views fundamentally misunderstands what tolerance means. To tolerate means only to allow without prohibiting or opposing. IN a free society, tolerance of ones views means only that one does not seek to prohibit the free expression of those views.

I can be said to tolerate the views of people like, say, Fred Phelps because I do not seek to prohibit the vocalization of his viewpoints. As much as I abhore what he stands for, I would rather live in a society where he is free to speak, than one where he is not.

That is all tolerance means, and that is all that is required of me to be tolerant of ones beliefs. That I do not seek to prohibit or oppose the expression of those beliefs.

The idea that somehow, under the mantle of "tolerance", I must respect, honor, agree with, or remain silent in my disagreement, of others viewpoints is absurd. I don't have to respect, agree, or understand your position in order to tolerate it, I need only not seek to prohibit your free exercise thereof.

Likewise while I tolerate your viewpoint, I am also free to vocalize, to the fullest extent, my disrespect, disbelief, and disagreement with those beliefs. Those who would scream that if I dare to disparage or voice my disapproval of their beliefs that I am being "intolerant" not only fundamentally misunderstand the term, they are guilty of the very thing they say they are opposing. For they are the ones who wish to have free reign to speak their beliefs, but would quash any opposition against them.

Tolerance demands only that I respect your right to express your beliefs. It does not demand that I remain silent in the face of beliefs I disagree with. I tolerate all beliefs, I make no efforts to prohibit you from believing them, or from expressing them. But to say that tolerance requires I can not exercise the very rights that I do not seek to oppose for you is, at its very core, the height of intolerance.

If free society demands that i tolerate your opposing views, and your right to express those views, it likewise requires that you tolerate mine. Any attempts therefore to try to force, coerce, or shame me into not voicing them due to my supposed "intolerance" renders you the only intolerant one amongst us.

so, if I were to go around saying that gays were lascivious and going to hell that would be tolerant? I am just trying to figure out what's acceptable. (not that I would actually say that)

No. It just isn't worth it in this case. I can present a clear and concise argument for why homosexuality is completely wrong. However to do so I must from an Islamic prospective and quote the Qur'an. However if I do some intolerant secularists on here will just say "omgz trolling" or "omgz religion is teh stupid!1" which does nothing but make debate or discussion impossible. Anyone who wants to actually hear what I have to say instead of acting like a child and stick their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear la la" can TG me and I'll be happy to discuss it with them.

I can present a clear and concise argument why Islam is wrong (at least those within its ranks who believe as you do). However to do so, I must from an objective persepective and quote ANY article on human rights. Or I could do so while quoting the Bible. Of cousre, you would say "omgz trolling" or "omgz ur religion is teh stupid!1" which does nothing but make debate or discussion impossible.

See, when you use an non-objective source to prove something is wrong through your non-objective eyes, how is that debate? It shows that you pick and choose your religious beliefs in order to support the beliefs you already had, but what does that prove to any of us? We all already know that.

You said you needed to quote the Qu'ran to answer. That is invoking your religion to prove your religion is right.

um...wrong person.

Wrong religion too, for that matter.

SOVIESTAN said that, and is a muslim. Smunkee, a christian, did not.

so, if I were to go around saying that gays were lascivious and going to hell that would be tolerant? I am just trying to figure out what's acceptable. (not that I would actually say that)
If you can find me a person who says those things about homosexuals, yet still supports full legal equality for gay citizens, then yes, that person would be showing tolerance of homosexuals.

um...wrong person.

Wrong religion too, for that matter.

SOVIESTAN said that, and is a muslim. Smunkee, a christian, did not.

Indeed. I just realised :(
I offer sincere apologies:(

You said you needed to quote the Qu'ran to answer. That is invoking your religion to prove your religion is right.

I don't think you're responding to the right person. I don't see Smunkee trying to prove the Qu'ran right.

so, if I were to go around saying that gays were lascivious and going to hell that would be tolerant? I am just trying to figure out what's acceptable. (not that I would actually say that)

depends. Hell is generally thought of as the place people go when they break god's rules. Those who believe that gods rules should be honored, and being gay breaks those rules, would generally try to prohibit such an action.

Would someone saying that actually, directly attempt to STOP people from performing homosexual acts? If you say that as an attempt to stop people from engaging in homosexual acts, yes, intollerant, you seek to prohibit or oppose that act.

If you simply say that, but at the same time recognize their right to engage in it and don't attempt to stop it, then it is tolerant. It is rude, disrespectful and dishonerable, but still tolerant.

THe problem is, when you say anything is a "sin" you directly imply that this is against divine law, and those who believe in divine law to the extent that violators are condemned to hell, typically try to ENFORCE that law.

So it's difficult to say, placing that statement in the context of the type that would utter it would typically be intolerant, however if you say it, but do not seek to oppose or prohibit people from engaging in homosexual acts, then it isn't truly intollerant.

I don't think you're responding to the right person. I don't see Smunkee trying to prove the Qu'ran right.

Already posted an apology :(

Damn those people that respond to comments adressed to others, even if they are the topic starter and have every right ;)

depends. Hell is generally thought of as the place people go when they break god's rules. Those who believe that gods rules should be honored, and being gay breaks those rules, would generally try to prohibit such an action.

Would someone saying that actually, directly attempt to STOP people from performing homosexual acts?

(just to be clear, I am only using this as an example)

say, they didn't want to create any laws or anything, they just wanted to go around town and tell all the gay people that they are bad, and possibly mentally ill.