'I go to bed at night...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, September 25, 2010 19:49
VIEWED: 13333
PAGE 8 of 11
(Edited to remove unnecessary fake profanity.) 
Quote:Dang it, Byte, why??? I never said MB was a troll, I said that his latest line of argument was trolling. There's a big difference, why do you feel the need to instruct me on crap I already know? Drives me up a wall. Here's a hint, Byte: if I believe someone to be a troll in the sense you mean it, I don't talk to 'em--like, ever.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
HK, did you read the parts of the thread where Mincingbeast was arguing that "logic consists of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?" This really isn't doing the alternate argument any favours.
As an aside, MB isn't a troll. A troll by definition is someone who contributes nothing to the community except riling people up and offending them. There are very few people here who fall under that description. Even kaneman is not one of them.
Quote:Thanks for the MB 101 class. Do you think I'm that clueless? Again, one bit of trolling does not make a person a troll.
MB will play with people, and does use a good degree of shock humour, sophistry, and mocking by imitation to make a point, but this alone does not make a troll. I'm perhaps more likely to be a troll than anyone else is, as my contributions to the community are lacking in general.
Byte, you do this on a semi-regular basis with me and I would appreciate it if you knocked it off for good and all. I like you, but I don't appreciate your instruction in remedial internet etiquette. In the context of this board I find your whinging at my crimes against tact rather outrageously misapplied.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You credit me with ideas; this is a mistake. Still, if I had an idea, it would be to desensitize everyone to everything.
in your hypothetical rational world, I would say something like "The theological structure of Islam makes justifying violence a lot easier than, say, the New Testament or whatever drivel Buddhists read. Let's have a frank discussion about this, and how we can avoid it." I would say this to a sockpuppet over my right hand, who would respond "Perhaps that is true, and perhaps we may, but aren't you stigmatizing innocent people by making blanket assertions about a faith and holding them to task for what their ancestors said and did?" And maybe then we'd have a discussion about the agony of the Reformation, and the awkward adolescence of the enlightenment, and how distressing it is to see a resurgence of pre-enlightenment ideas coming from both Muslims and Christians a like, and how we debase each other. And then we'd hold hands and snuggle.
actual likeness:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have often thought that Islam could benefit from a reformation of some kind. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the sort of thing one can wish into being from the outside. It seems to me it's also the sort of thing that is constantly in danger of collapsing as long as pre-reformation materials are incorporated into the belief system.
Even in the Christian faith, the presense of antiquated practices that make some respond with loathing cause others to respond with yearning. Supposedly, Jesus Christ came to jettison the old way of doing things to a large degree. Despite this, I find many Christians lovingly cleaving to ideas present in the Old Testament that allow them to discriminate against and mistreat their fellow man.
We are probably unable to have a new prophet clear things up due to the book of Revelations (and similar cautions in the Quran) that say, "This is it. Anyone else who surfaces is an evil fraud." Of course, that didn't stop the Mormons, so I may be mistaken on that point.
As much as I hate to say it, the best hope to avoid religious extremism may be for religion to die. But then I wonder if suicide bombers wouldn't explode themselves in shopping malls due to a division on the issue of Global Warming or some non-religious principle.
My hope for a remedy is that secular living will provide a source of comfort so undeniable that religion will lose its grip on the psyche of people everywhere. As to how to MAKE it happen? I have no idea how to flip the mental switch in the human population. Western nations have provided comperably better living conditions to the Muslim nations of the world for several generations, yet that hasn't proved enough of an incentive to stamp out theocracies in the mideast.
I honestly think the best we can do for ourselves is to separate from those awkward regions of the world until they resolve their issues internally. The fewer ties we have to the mideast, the less cause we will have to feel threatened by their extremists. Meanwhile, back home, we can emphatically defend individual freedom as much as is practicable, to continue providing a counterpoint by example.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal4 - Ha!, by no means should folk live in fear, and instead of outlawing everything a girl could possibly defend themselves with, forcing dependance on all but useless and often abusive campus cops, most of whom are male, mind you...
I say install a fuckin weapons rack by the door of every female dorm.
Seriously, we vilify self-defense, make people helpless, and then condition them to submit to an aggressor to make it easier for the powers that be to fleece em - and of course criminals and other scum exploit that, why wouldn't they when we hand them pre-loaded victims on a silver platter.
Ever notice that most criminals and predators go into total mental lockup when they get any reaction BUT passive submission ?
And that folks who act immediately generally carry the day, because of this ?
Not that, yanno, violence solves everything, nor do weapons, but that conditioned-submission and vilification of self defense shit has GOT TO GO.
And of course, having a friend or two to back you up with is worth half a dozen weapons, cause it's more will than skill, but skill helps too.
Anyhows, my answer to a threat is never to just roll over, that kinda crap is how these problems got so bad - I might play along in the very rare case some shitheel has the drop on me, but all they gotta do is blink at the wrong moment...
As for Wendy...
She's good, I give her that, but not perfect no, and I did cheat...
Cause of closet-kid syndrome she has to use visual accessability software on her laptop, and it doesn't do caps, or it didn't (I color coded them with an HTML tag for her now) and I figured that'd hang her, lol.
I wound up cooking her dinner, eatin crow (not literally, but, yanno) and having to hear about it for damn near a week straight - it's not often anyone can get over on me so, and she's done it TWICE, meh.
I do kinda range from friendly-snarky, to all biz, to verbal rampages you can practically smell fire and brimstone rising from, but that's more a matter of how rough a week it's been, and adding a shot or two of booze tends to wear down my "play nice" filter, but I'll call that one up front most of the time.
Oh, and Anthony ?
Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement of the the plain and simple fact that if those books are in any way true, then "God" is a sick, twisted, evil fuck which gets it's jollies by pitting us against one another so that it can feed on the misery.
It's the only logical explaination that fits the facts.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement"
Hello Frem,
It sounds nice, but you can't force anything. Not in any way I'd like to explore, anyhow.
My own choice of Christianity is predicated on the belief that much of the source material is faulty and tampered with. So I've decided to 'pick and choose' the good stuff until God sets me straight. (If he is exactly as described in the good book, things look bad all over.) Unfortunately, most priests and preachers will recoil in horror at the idea of folks disregarding whole sections wholesale, or worse, assuming the book as a whole is largely inaccurate and flawed.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony,
Have you done much/any delving into the subject of Gnostic Christianity? It largely predates even the Gospels and, I suspect, might very well be completely consistent with your understanding, even adding and amplifying some of your thoughts and beliefs as well.
Of course, there's a "pop" version of Gnosticism that you'd hate and need to wade through to get to the real juicy stuff, but such is the life of a scholar, no?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh, Mal, statistically, if you’re a WOMAN, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted some time in your lifetime, not just college women.
Mincing; it depends on where you live. I’ve never locked my door in my life, and never been robbed. The places I live almost never have such things. If I lived elsewhere, I’d never leave it Unlocked.
In a way, fearing being a victim of a terrorist attack is kind of like fearing being hit by lightning. There are a few things you can do to be safer, but if it’s gonna hit you, it’s gonna hit you. What exactly can any of us individuals DO to ensure our safety from Muslim terrorism? Avoid airplanes, subways, tall government buildings, or what? It’s one of the things that is most useless to take precautions about, in my opinion, because there ARE no viable precautions. I’ll take precautions against the things I CAN protect myself from, thank you. Otherwise, it’s living in fear.
Mal4 said it eloquently:Quote:
THAT is the biggest danger we face today as far as our country is concerned, and I take it very seriously, as should all of us who care about our OWN freedoms, too. The Papers Please law could affect people like me, with olive skin, just as much as a Hispanic citizen OR a Latino drug lord. Take civil rights from one, you up the chances of taking it from others.
And if you give a shit about the freedoms that make your country great, you won't let pointless paranoia turn you into a sniveling coward, eager to snatch basic rights away from American citizens who represent absolutely no danger to you.
Using a condom or wearing a seat belt doesn't damage anyone else's life. Racism and biased hate does.
Cav, I thought Mincing was teasing. And don’t you mean “anyone whose skin is LESS ORANGE” than Boehners? Tho’ I guess there’s not much racial profiling of orange-skinned people.
Isn’t what you’re talking about “deductive reasoning”? For example:Quote:
Isn’t that exactly what we’re seeing? Ergo:
I gave an inferences test to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.
This is quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high RWAs are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low RWAs are. But in general high RWAs seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that a conclusion is false.
Muslims commit terrorism
Joe Schmoe is a Muslim
Joe Schmoe is a terrorist
Byte, you definitely don’t fit the description of a troll. What you left out is that part of being a troll is to be NASTY, in my opinion; and to post in order to get a rise, nothing else. That definitely doesn’t describe you. And you’ve made MANY contributions to discussions, so it doesn’t hold water. Me, I DO consider Kane (and Whozit) trolls...not always, but the vast majority of the time. They deliberately write in an ugly fashion, an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?
Good question, there are no real practicable + stomach-able solutions to counter this threat 'specifically' (doesn't stop Auraptor and others feverishly banging on about this issue without proposing any solutions). Well done to Klesst at least for suggesting a specific action: Muslims should be targeted for extra searching (although I think if you're a Muslim planning to board a plane you pretty much assume you'll get searched - I personally feel that's enough). Kaneman, interesting to hear you agreeing - I think Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about that.
One Islamic specific policy we Europeans are considering: whether to let Turkey join the EU (or whether to place certain special conditions of entry, like on Turkish migration to the rest of Europe). Before the war on terror Turkey was on course to join, now it's very up-in-the-air. There are quite a few pros: Turkey is a populous country, a growing economy, a secular democracy and a bridge between East and West. But a muslim majority nation...
Should we seek to preserve Europe as a continent of christian heritage, and limit demographic change that threatens or clashes with that?
I'm personally swayed by both arguments, but probably the latter more.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It's interesting to hear that maintaining a Christian Heritage may be a goal of the EU. I hadn't heard that before.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME