Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,833 Year: 4,090/9,624 Month: 961/974 Week: 288/286 Day: 9/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 241 of 406 (577471)
08-28-2010 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by onifre
08-27-2010 10:47 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
That would depend of course on what we're talking about.
And in this particular instance? You know, the very topic we're talking about?
quote:
No rules, just self-awareness that certain things when said will offend, I'd call that common sense.
Now, that isn't exactly true, is it? Or are you denying your "shut the fuck up" commentary? For all your talk about being an equal-opportunity offender, you squeal the loudest when it gets turned back on you.
quote:
if you read my OP, is that I think they should build the mosque.
Why?
quote:
Others here, including yourself, have pointed out that it's not the same thing. And I agree.
And yet, you continue to argue the point.
Why?
quote:
The best pat is you actually answer this by acknowledging who "they" are.
Oh, I have my idea of who "they" are, but I don't know whom you are referring to by "they." When I speak of "they," I am referring to the specific people who wrote into Comedy Central to claim that they were going to cause physical violence if the episode was aired. That amounts to a whole, oh, three people at most (since Comedy Central didn't exactly publish the specific threats, though they did mention that they were made).
I get the impression that when you speak of "they," you don't have any specific people in mind. But rather than try to read your mind, I have asked you repeatedly and specifically to tell us whom you are referring to when you say, "they." Now, I should point out that you have directly complained that I somehow stick words in your mouth when I debate with you that you find to be maddening. And yet, when I directly ask you to tell us what you mean, you avoid and evade at all costs lest you be pinned down to something specific.
So let me try yet again to give you the chance to put words into your own mouth:
But who are they? Some anonymous, unknown nobody whom you can't identify?
quote:
All of a sudden you know that Muslims threatened Comedy Central, so you know who the "they" are.
No, I don't. I know whom I am referring to when I say, "they." I have no idea whom you are referring to because despite my repeatedly asking you to be specific about who "they" are, you have avoided and evaded all attempts. Will this be the time when you finally decide to answer a question put to you?
But who are they? Some anonymous, unknown nobody whom you can't identify?
quote:
The people who are protesting the mosque did that?
Well, we've already had a cabbie stabbed in New York for being a Muslim. The people protesting the mosque almost came to blows over a guy just walking by simply because he was black and had a skull-cap on.
Of course, you're conflating points, but you knew that, didn't you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 10:47 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 10:10 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 251 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 10:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 242 of 406 (577472)
08-28-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by onifre
08-27-2010 10:52 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Please provide a link....
Please do your own homework.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 10:52 AM onifre has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 243 of 406 (577473)
08-29-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by onifre
08-27-2010 11:04 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
I mean fair as in everyone, every group, religion, institution, etc., will have to deal with their feelings being hurt, because no punches are held back.
We're back to the question you won't answer: How do we decide who gets hurt?
And why is the "fair" result one where "everyone" gets hurt?
quote:
However, in the case with Comedy Central showing Jesus shitting on the flag, but in the same episode they didn't allow Matt and Trey to show the image of the prophet, that is not fair.
And how did you come to that conclusion? What was your ethical process by which you concluded that allowing one but not the other was "unfair"? Be specific.
quote:
Do I or do I not debate on this forum with people who disagree with me?
You don't really want an answer to that, do you? No, you don't debate. Not in the slightest. When asked direct questions, you avoid and evade. You don't do your homework before jumping in. You repeat refuted claims thinking that if you just parrot them over and over again, that will somehow make them more true. And your baiting attempts only prove the point I made a long time ago: You can't stop thinking about sex when you think about me. You weren't even talking to me when you decided to insert me into a conversation you were having with someone else. Dude, get over it. I'm not going to fuck you no matter how much you beg.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 11:04 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 10:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 244 of 406 (577517)
08-29-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
08-27-2010 3:23 AM


quote:
The biggest terrorist act that ever took place in the US before 9/11 was the destruction of the Federal Building in Oklahoma...carried out by a Christian.
Actually Timothy McVeigh probably wasn't a Christian.
From the Wiki:
quote:
In a recorded interview with Time magazine[80] McVeigh professed his belief in "a god", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York. The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter to them claiming to be an agnostic and that he did not believe in a hell.[81][82] McVeigh once said that he believed the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside them. He had also said, "Science is my religion."[83]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 3:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:25 PM Tram law has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9197
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 245 of 406 (577533)
08-29-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Tram law
08-29-2010 12:20 PM


Distorted view of McVeigh
He was and admitted to be greatly influenced by the "Turner Diaries", which is a tome of the christian identity movement.
Here are some other views of McVeigh.
quote:
All this text discloses is that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. It also reveals that he did not want to discuss his faith further because he knew most people would find it repulsive. What was repulsive about his faith? Was he an atheist? No. Was he a secular humanist? No.
Source
quote:
But the following several pages establish pretty clearly McVeigh’s roots and inspiration in the Christian Identity movement, which is based on racial supremacy and Biblical law — at least as they manage to read Biblical law. McVeigh had plenty of association with Elohim City, and was a devoted exponent of the Turner Diaries...
So, while those who wish to deny it can make a plausible case that McVeigh is an agnostic, this is not far different from various Muslims denying that Osama bin Laden is a true Muslim. If McVeigh’s act of terror had actually motivated an effective uprising, a series of continuous disruptive terrorist campaigns, they would have arisen in the name of some twisted theory of Aryan Christianity.
Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 12:20 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 2:13 PM Theodoric has not replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 246 of 406 (577543)
08-29-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Distorted view of McVeigh
For every interpretation there is an equal and opposite interpretation.
For every blame there is an equal and opposite blame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:25 PM Theodoric has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 247 of 406 (577551)
08-29-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Rrhain
08-27-2010 3:23 AM


"The other guy did it too" is not a valid defense
Rrhain writes:
Minnemooseus writes:
That said, the Muslim branch of Crazy Inc. does have a pretty bad recent record of violent reactions to visual depictions of might Mo.
And that lets the Christian crazies off the hook how?...
One aspect of violent reactions I was really thinking of, and I did specifically use the term, was rioting. As in, large groups of people gathering together outside and being violent and destructive. I don't recall any recent such events by Christian based groups.
And who's proposing that "Christian crazies" be let off the hook? Certainly not me, nor do I recall anyone else. You are defending bad Muslim behavior by saying the Christians are just as bad.
Bad behavior by one party does not excuse bad behavior by another party.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix typo.

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Rrhain, posted 08-27-2010 3:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 3:40 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 249 by Rrhain, posted 08-30-2010 3:22 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 256 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2010 6:12 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Tram law
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 248 of 406 (577557)
08-29-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Minnemooseus
08-29-2010 3:00 PM


Re: "The other guy did it too" is not a valid defense
One bad apple ruins the barrel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-29-2010 3:00 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 249 of 406 (577685)
08-30-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Minnemooseus
08-29-2010 3:00 PM


Minnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
One aspect of violent reactions I was really thinking of, and I did specifically use the term, was rioting. As in, large groups of people gathering together outside and being violent and destructive. I don't recall any recent such events by Christian based groups.
And when was the last time we had a riot in the United States? Think about how riots form and what social measures the US has in place such that riots don't happen very often. So just because Christians take their violence individually, that means it isn't as bad?
Exactly what do you think was going to happen to that construction worker had not security intervened?
quote:
You are defending bad Muslim behavior by saying the Christians are just as bad.
(*chuckle*)
Boy, did you completely miss the point. I'm saying that Comedy Central ignored Christian bad behaviour but then lost their minds at the slightest whiff of Muslim bad behaviour. There are no shortages of examples of Christians taking it upon themselves to decide who lives and who dies in the name of their god right here in this country and Comedy Central doesn't have any problem showing images of Christ doing horrible things, getting letters, some of which I am sure are intimating of violence, and continuing on without a hitch.
But a single threat of something that has never actually happened here in this country and they turn tail and run.
quote:
Bad behavior by one party does not excuse bad behavior by another party.
Indeed. And if that were my argument, you'd have a point. But you're trying to play a game of "They did it worse." That's just as invalid an argument.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-29-2010 3:00 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 250 of 406 (577762)
08-30-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Rrhain
08-28-2010 11:54 PM


And in this particular instance? You know, the very topic we're talking about?
Already answered it.
Or are you denying your "shut the fuck up" commentary? For all your talk about being an equal-opportunity offender, you squeal the loudest when it gets turned back on you.
Again I'll try to explain because you like to take one single statement completely out of context. You and anyone else, in my opinion, can shut the fuck up, cause I don't care that your feelings are hurt. That doesn't mean you or anyone else is going to, by all means talk, express yourself. But when I say "shut the fuck up" it's meant as a "who cares" what you have to say.
Go re-read our old gender/humor thread and you'll see many times that I say anyone can say whatever they want, it's their right. But I don't have to listen, for me, they could just as easily shut the fuck up.
Oh, I have my idea of who "they" are, but I don't know whom you are referring to by "they."
We're refering to the same people...
No, I don't. I know whom I am referring to when I say, "they." I have no idea whom you are referring to because despite my repeatedly asking you to be specific about who "they" are, you have avoided and evaded all attempts.
Same people...
Well, we've already had a cabbie stabbed in New York for being a Muslim.
What are the odds of a cabbie getting stabbed in NYC and he happens to be Muslim? Every fucking cabbie is Muslim in the city!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 11:54 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Rrhain, posted 09-01-2010 5:49 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 251 of 406 (577763)
08-30-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Rrhain
08-28-2010 11:54 PM


double post
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 08-28-2010 11:54 PM Rrhain has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 252 of 406 (577765)
08-30-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Rrhain
08-29-2010 12:06 AM


How do we decide who gets hurt?
Jeez... I have:
Message 229
quote:
That would depend of course on what we're talking about. On stage, I don't make a decision to exclude anyone. I attack everyone equally. On TV it would be up to the network to decide who they want to offend and who they don't.
-snip
No rules, just self-awareness that certain things when said will offend, I'd call that common sense. I equally offend everyone. For a TV network, that's their decision.
And how did you come to that conclusion? What was your ethical process by which you concluded that allowing one but not the other was "unfair"? Be specific.
My ethical processes? You're such as fag...
And your baiting attempts only prove the point I made a long time ago: You can't stop thinking about sex when you think about me.
That's just cause I've always wanted to ass rape Peter Pan. Currently, you're the closest thing to that. So how 'bout it? Can I slip into your never never land?
You weren't even talking to me when you decided to insert me into a conversation you were having with someone else.
Well, sir, any time I need to reference a complete and total fag, and/or douche, you'll be my representative. And since so many people here on EvC are so fond of you, they'll know exactly what I mean.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Rrhain, posted 08-29-2010 12:06 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2010 2:18 PM onifre has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3976
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 253 of 406 (577815)
08-30-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by onifre
08-30-2010 10:23 AM


Gay baiting, bad comedy, and/or something like that
I was on the verge of giving you a 48 suspension:
  • 24 hours for (ongoing?) gay baiting (and I may very well be misusing that term, but you know what I mean).
  • 24 hours for comedy attempts not up to professional standards.
I also just considered tacking on another 24 hours for "or something like that".
The suspension is not going to happen, at least not yet. But I think your little forum rule 10 violations against Rrhain need to stop. Or at least need to be more funny.
Discussion? - Take it to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report discussion problems here: No.2
Thread Reopen Requests 2
Topic Proposal Issues
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 10:23 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 3:41 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2978 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 254 of 406 (577825)
08-30-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Adminnemooseus
08-30-2010 2:18 PM


Re: Gay baiting, bad comedy, and/or something like that
24 hours for comedy attempts not up to professional standards.
Fair enough... I image that would be the first in EvC history?
Just to clarify, I wasn't gay baiting, and would never insult gay people by compairing Rrhain to them. He knows how we're using the terms, but he insists on connecting the use of the terms to homosexuality.
But I make no excuse for the lack of humor, even though I wasn't really trying to be funny. He really does act like a fag (and I use the term as defined by South Park, see here: South Park "The F Word")
quote:
"The F Word" argues language is ever-changing and that taboo words only carry a stigma if society allows them to, and attempts to reclaim and disempower the word "fag".
The boys confess to the spray-painting, and explain to the city council that the word "fag" is not intended as an insult to homosexuals, and is more commonly used nowadays in reference to a contemptible person who rides a Harley motorcycle, or "an inconsiderate douchebag", as Stan puts it.
See, douchbags, and that's what I've always considered Rrhain to be: a complete and total douchbag - or, a Fag. I explained this to him in the Gender/Humor thread, and so did Mod, but he continues to connect the terms to homosexuality. So I decided to have some fun with it, and devised my campaign of exposing him for the melodramatic, douchbag that he is.
I promise to be funnier though. My bad.
- Oni
{Added by edit - Oni has just posted a seemingly related video at the humor topic - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2010 2:18 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 255 of 406 (578218)
09-01-2010 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by onifre
08-30-2010 10:10 AM


onifre responds to me:
quote:
Already answered it.
Really? Then indulge me and try it again, just so we can be clear.
quote:
You and anyone else, in my opinion, can shut the fuck up, cause I don't care that your feelings are hurt.
Which proves my point. The moment your feelings get hurt, the moment there are any consequences to your behaviour, you're the one crying the loudest. You're nothing but a coward without the courage of your convictions.
quote:
But when I say "shut the fuck up" it's meant as a "who cares" what you have to say.
Now, that isn't exactly true, is it? Shall we go back to the precise post where you made that comment?
quote:
Go re-read our old gender/humor thread and you'll see many times that I say anyone can say whatever they want, it's their right.
Indeed. Let's. You weren't saying Ms. Ossorio should "shut the fuck up" because you didn't care. It was precisely because you did care. It's precisely because her speaking, and that's all she had the power to do was speak, was having results you didn't like. You're all fine with "freedom of speech," but the moment you have to live with the results of your speech, you immediately scream "censorship."
You're nothing but a coward.
quote:
We're refering to the same people...
Really? Who? You can give me the name of the specific group Comedy Central was referring to, yes?
You did actually do your homework, didn't you?
quote:
What are the odds of a cabbie getting stabbed in NYC and he happens to be Muslim?
Clearly, you didn't.
The Muslim cabbie wasn't stabbed happenstance. Enright specifically asked him if he were Muslim and when the cabbie said yes, proceeded to stab him.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by onifre, posted 08-30-2010 10:10 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by onifre, posted 09-01-2010 12:50 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024