|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 9, 2004 21:47:13 GMT -5
By the way...if christians are Borg, then is Jesus their Queen? Interesting... only a trek fan (or at least watcher) would know the Borg have a Queen. Are you a trekker, Laura? ~Roger edit: Jesus as a queen... ANY queen... that's good comedy.
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 9, 2004 22:25:53 GMT -5
Wouldn't be any funnier than Hugo Weaving as a drag queen in "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert."
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 9, 2004 22:46:19 GMT -5
Interesting... only a trek fan (or at least watcher) would know the Borg have a Queen. Are you a trekker, Laura? ~Roger edit: Jesus as a queen... ANY queen... that's good comedy. Uh....er....my dad is? Yeah, I admit I've seen my share of Star Trek......mostly the first ones, and the more recent ones. And all the movies. ::sigh:: I wouldn't dare go head-to-head with either you or Jason on trekkie trivia though. ::hums "Dude Looks like a Lady":: -Laura "it's 'cause of your sandals, and your supper" McIntosh
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 9, 2004 23:48:00 GMT -5
On a more serious note than my last post, and in response to the postings over the last few days:
This thread is increasingly pissing me off. I'm hearing a lot of talk about the rules of logic and about the folly of hypocrisy, and yet seeing nothing but hypocrisy and logical fallacies from the same people who bitch about it.
This thread started out with gruesome joking around about killing Christians. Whatever...it's the Punching Bag. Then Magonus threw in a similarly pointed statement no worse than any that had been made in the previous 15 posts. Yet everyone jumped down his throat. He has only made 3 brief posts on this thread, none containing any personal attacks. Yet he has been called an idiot (multiple times), a twat, a "hideously misshapen retarded cousin," a shitwit, and a dumbass. One of the rules of debate is to attack the arguments, not the person. Ad hominems are logical fallacies as well, yet are used here in excess by those who claim to value truth and logic.
I was also unable to find any personal attacks in his previous posts under the old name, yet again he was constantly insulted and attacked, as were others whose opinions differed from most of the group. Maybe he just wants to cause a ruckus and stir things up. So the fuck what? Theistic message boards are certainly not without crashers of their own (and it would not be surprising if some of our members have played that role at one time or another). The only thing I really saw in his previous posts were some weak arguments. But many of our posts contain weak arguments as well. Again, why the double standard? Why the hypocritical treatment of theists versus non-theists? It sucks when we're on the receiving end, so why do the very thing we abhor?
Whether or not Magonus's previous posts were satirical or not is beside the point. He was right in reply #23 in emphasizing the fallacious generalizations that people make. Many Christians say stupid shit about non-Christians as if they were all the same. Many non-Christians do the same with Christians. It's all crap, whether it come from a CCC member or from a member of MSUFA.
Why am I defending Magonus? I disagree with his positions, and if he merely wants to raise a little hell, I'd appreciate it if he did it elsewhere. But he may actually want to have legitimate discussions. I'm sure some of the others may have wanted to as well. Yet for being the open-minded, logical people most of us would claim to be, no discussion went for more than a post or two without some uncalled-for comment, not infrequently made by a regular member.
I personally don't give a rat's ass whether someone is atheist, Catholic, Evangelical, Hindu, Pagan, etc. I don't believe in an afterlife, so it's not like I think that there will be a problem with believing in a deity of some sort, even if it doesn't exist. I only start to care when people see fit to infringe upon my rights and the rights of others based on their religious beliefs. A little discussion never hurt anyone, and so I defy everyone, regardless of belief, to truly be a freethinking individual and have a worthwhile, legitimate discussion without falling into the logical fallacies and hypocrisy that have crippled interreligious relations for way too damn long.
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Feb 10, 2004 10:22:03 GMT -5
A thoughtful post, Susan. Good job.
Sean
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 10, 2004 13:33:20 GMT -5
I suppose my feelings about this can go both ways. Susan, on the one hand, I totally see and agree with where you're coming from. It does make one no better - in fact worse, I might argue - to commit the same grievance his opponent does. The nature of the Punching Bag is to blow off steam, but maybe that should be a bit more tuned to say " try not to take off the head of someone waving a white flag."
But on the other, I'm angry. Ian, Jason, Nathan, Laura... and really all of us, are angry. Maybe some express it a bit more outwardly than others, and maybe some find some therapy in a bit of an off-color joke. That's something I'll defend as long as we don't go over the line that we all know exists.
Something we all have to consider in looking at how we act in situations with the opponent: despite the best intentions, a battle-fatigued person is going to make a mistake and blow off the head of someone waving the white flag. It happens. Now maybe Magonus had absolutely no intent of going any farther than his original comment in this thread. But I know that I personally am just so sick.. and I mean [glow=green,2,300]sick[/glow] of the omni-presence of our opponents. We can't be left alone. We can't go to work without being preached to when our secret atheism we've struggled to keep secret is inevitably divulged. We can't walk on campus without being accosted by people with bibles, faux aborted fetuses, and self-righteous fools tearing down our attempts to take a seat at the table. We can't turn on the news or pick up a paper without seeing some new Ten Commandments monument gleaming under the loving gaze of a public official. We can't sit on a fucking airplane without risking being called out. We can't be known to a handful of theists in a casual working relationship without being a novelty for disection and probing. We can't go on vacation and be in a fun, relaxed atmosphere without someone handing us a pamphlet. We can't be allowed to grieve for lost lives without someone swooping in to use the moment of weakness to wean someone onto a faith.
It is everywhere. Everywhere.
What can we do against it? Laugh? That usually works, if at least temporarily. Start getting angry? Sometimes. Ignore it and let it get under our skin? Far too often for me.
We can also do something useful to counter it. We all know MSUFA has done, and will continue to do its share in that. But when you've got this shit going down all around you, and you cannot see the fucking end... I think its natural to shoot first and ask questions later.
And what can make us better than our opponents is to realize it if we shot when we should have asked, and try to work towards not making the same mistake twice.
~Roger
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Feb 10, 2004 14:32:26 GMT -5
Well said. It was a bit hasty calling names before magonus even said anything offensive... well, personally insulting anyway.....and part of the reason I stayed out of the " debates" earlier in the year was that I didn't like how we were treating others who came to our board. But hey, poking fun at people is a needed release sometimes (not that I was even all that mean) and this is the Punching Bag, after all. I agree with what Carolyn said earlier though...we should have a separate section for debates. If theists happen to wander into this section, then it should be right and fair that they are used as punching bags. If they attack us in the debate section, then perhaps it is just best to ignore them? A child screaming in a store eventually stops when they realize they are getting no attention. -Laura
|
|
|
Post by Ravenlock on Feb 10, 2004 14:35:15 GMT -5
I might make it a standing practice to move threads that have degraded into the Punching Bag.
|
|
|
Post by Rama on Feb 10, 2004 15:14:13 GMT -5
Well, since that post was obviously aimed primarily (solely) at me I guess I should offer up my side. Firstly, as I always say, I'm quarter pirate on my mother's side. I swear a lot. I find that the proper use of an inventive bit of profanity makes my views more fun to write and helps emphasize if I feel very strongly on something. That said, if I'm offending anyone with vulgarity (I don't believe that was the point of your letter though) then I only have to remind them that we're in the punchingbag. Furthermore, I feel completely justified in every dirty word I called Magonus. He has proven extensively that he has no intellectual prowess or integrity. I didn't feel nearly as strongly about this as I do until he tried to weasel out of his past behavior. If he wants to say "okay, maybe what I said was pretty ridiculous" then that's one thing, but saying "Oh yeah guys, now it was satirical, even though it wasn't when I wrote it" is completely different and is an act deserving only of my spite. If I ever did something like that I'd fully expect to get shot down too, especially if I were on a board of people holding the exact opposite views as mine. Furthermore, my comments and personal attacks were not fallacious. The matter I was commenting on was his character as a person, not his views. When I called him a shitwit, fuckwit, etc. I was making statements about his personality, not about his opinions. Whether or not his previous posts were satirical is exactly the point, and the only one I was commenting on. I agree that he was completely right in his assertion that both sides of the battlefield make mistakes and generalizations. That's not what I was attacking. My personal insults are only fallacious if they're intended to draw attention away from his positions and onto his credibility. When the attention is on his crediblity and character in the first place my insults are nothing but logical. Cruel, uncalled for, excessive, and abusive perhaps, but not illogical. I'm with Roger on this one. I'm angry. I've seen firsthand evidence that it IS possible for a theist to be respectful, honorable, and honest in a debate with another person. Magonus is not one of these people, and until he can prove sufficient evidence otherwise I will continue to act under the belief that he has not changed. And again as Roger pointed out, this is in no way shape or form a debate. It would be patently absurd to even propose that it is. This thread started and developed as nothing more than an outlet for pent up energy. If Magonus wants to start some other thread somewhere else arguing for his bigotry and ignorance then in that thread I'll address his stance, and not his character, just like I did (or at least tried to do) in all the real "debate" threads. I respect your opinion of this thread and of me, Susan, but you're expecting too much out of both these things. No claims were made that this was a debate. No claims were made by me that I'd treat it like one. And that said, I still think Magonus is a fuckwit. I don't care if he hasn't called me a fuckwit or insulted me in any way yet, an idiot is an idiot, and I will call them as such.
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 10, 2004 15:49:42 GMT -5
I'm afraid Ramalamadingdong is the only one who's been paying any attention. Maggot's been a drooling retard since the day he first infested this place. He's never made any attempt to sound anything but... well, like a drooling retard. Credit where credit is due is a perfectly just stance, however, no credit is due here. From day one he's been a biggoted homophobe who argues fallaciously, refuses to answer criticisms of his arguments, and continues to call us more names than we have him during rants about how all we can seem to do is call him names. He's a capitol "T" Troll and nothing else (well, and a drooling retard).
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 11, 2004 0:12:23 GMT -5
Lots to respond to here, so I will try to keep this as orderly as possible. First of all, my post was not directed solely or even primarily at you Nathan, but at multiple members who have said needlessly inflammatory things both here and on other threads. You just happened to supply the most quotable personal attacks on this single thread, and I didn't feel like going through other threads where the attacks were made by other individuals as a matter of convenience. I would now add " drooling retard" and "biggoted (sic) homophobe" to the list, though it was not your comment. Oh yeah, and there's nothing wrong with using a little fucking profanity. I just draw a line between swearing and using it as an insult. In any case, please take my following comments as being directed at no one in particular, unless otherwise specified. I realize that this is not a formal debate (though it did sort of become one about how to deal with people like Magonus, even prior to my post), yet I was not the one who kept emphasizing logical argumentation and the rules of intellectual discussion. Several people were making a huge deal of this, yet still engaged in fallacies of their own both here and on the other threads (yes, even the ones including actual debate). Many random comments made on this thread seemed to imply that Magonus had made utter chaos of this board or otherwise did something terribly wrong the last time he frequented here. Yet I couldn't find anything in his posts that would seem to justify all the vitriol against him. In the first place, he really doesn't have enough posts to validate the charges made against him. Yes, I disagree very strongly with his arguments against equal rights for homosexuals, but since when do we bash and criticize people for mere dissent? Isn't that the job of the Bush administration? If it's wrong when the President does it, why is it suddenly okay when we do it? So his arguments were weak and fallacious. Again, many of our arguments have also been weak and fallacious, such as dismissing him as an idiot in the homosexuality thread without even bothering to refute the claims or wait for a response to the refutations made by others. He did make several responses to counterarguments given, despite claims to the contrary. And I certainly can't find any posts where he calls us names, or even "rants" about being called names himself, also despite claims to the contrary. I've since read every post he's made on this board, and can find nothing at all. If someone cares to share where all these things happened, I would gladly look it up and retract my statements. Again, whether or not Magonus is lying about the atheism thread being satire is beside the point, as the point I am making is about double standards and hypocrisy. My concerns apply equally as well to the other non-members who have come to this board who are not under suspicion of lying about motives or previous statements. This thread simply provide the appropriate ground for vocalizing those concerns. In post #23 on this thread, Magonus stated that while he understood the Christian-killing comments to be a joke, he got annoyed because of hearing a lot of similar comments on a frequent basis. Yes, it is in jest, but that does not mean that it is entirely unreasonable to be annoyed by it. If Christians had been replaced by Jews, Blacks, or homosexuals in those posts, people of those groups would probably likewise have some justification in being annoyed at the nature of the comments, even if they understood them to be jest. Would we still have joked in that same way had one of these other groups been the subject? This is not about political correctness, but merely equal treatment and understanding. If someone joked about killing atheists in as much detail as there was here, would it be unreasonable if we got somewhat annoyed by those remarks? Yes, this is our Punching Bag, but it seems that only our active members are allowed to punch, yet when someone else has something to punch, it's not okay. Again a double standard. Roger, I'm just as angry as anyone else here about religious infringement on my rights and privacy. You know that. And I'm not complaining about the jokes made in the first page of this thread or the purpose of the Punching; as I said, this is not about political correctness. I appreciate and experience that anger just as much as anyone else. I'm just wondering what Magonus has done to justify having the anger we feel about the world throw at him as if he has a large amount of blame for it. Again, his posts really aren't that terrible. They just don't agree with our view. So what? Ultimately, this boils down to how non-theists deal with Christians (in the US...though other religious majorities obviously apply in other countries). If someone holds himself to be an intelligent, open-minded, rational individual, then why act the complete opposite when presented with an ideological attack? Why become an atheistic version of the close-minded bigots who attack you and you despise? Yes, everyone does eventually have their breaking point, but getting overly angry without sufficient provocation only serves to weaken the cause to gain social respect as non-theists. It will ultimately be the strength of our arguments and the support of open-minded theists that will facilitate our greater acceptance. Finally, it's okay with me that other people have their religion, and that they feel the need to express it. I just wish that people would be more considerate and respectful of the beliefs of others. I get annoyed with pushy attempts at proselytization, but I view it at the same level as a sale pitch for a new credit card or any other commercial goods. I weigh the validity of the claims and make my decision. If I am not interested, I merely excuse myself and walk away. If they do not stop, I ask them to stop. If they still don't, I ignore them and continue on my way. If they still persist, then you call the cops and report harassment. (modified to get rid of a random smiley face)
|
|
Magonus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
Posts: 34
|
Post by Magonus on Feb 11, 2004 19:58:19 GMT -5
Hey all, sorry it's taken so long to respond, been a busy couple of days. First, thank you, anti-myrmidon, for speaking my mind a bit (despite that not being your intent ;D). Second, I agree with the sentiment of this thread being a poor place to debate anything. If someone would like to begin a debate of some sort, I should be more than happy to join in (and hopefully redeem the hideous opinion some have formed of me). I may try and start one of some sort, if there are those who would be interested, just not this week, because homework is a bit steep right now.
-Magonus
Ps: For the record, the name is taken from my love of history, not X-Men (although Magneto has often been a favorite character... Especially Ian McKellan's (sp?) version.)
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Feb 11, 2004 21:44:34 GMT -5
I, for one, am apt to agree with Susan. So what if you do believe his arguments to be poor. Just state what you believe to be wrong in the argument, and some proof backing up your belief. If he responds with the same argument as before, or doesn't respond properly to the information presented, then just stop debating, let it die. Calling people names will not help them to believe or understand any argument or fact better, and will only degrade the thread into a name-calling spree.
Also, a debate board is a pretty good idea. I'm all for it.
Renee "I've been studying so I'm serious" Trudeau
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Feb 12, 2004 1:07:22 GMT -5
Well, jumping jillikers, seems I'm just a stick in the mud. Here's the thing, for any of you who may feel that I or any other members have been acting in a less than desirable manner: I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt... once, maybe even twice. To this day, I still give idiots the most favorable interpritation of their words that I can, even more favorable than I know they are capable of producing on their own. But eventually we hit a place where we're lying to ourselves. A place where our hopes begin to outweigh our perceptions and foundation in reality. Some would argue that just because every apple that's ever come loose from a tree has fallen down to the ground doesn't mean the next one neccessarily will. Sure, I understand that there is an infinitelty small chance that gravity might not apply to the next apple, but I also know that there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999% chance that it will. Am I being brash? Over confident? Am I overstepping my bounderies or not being fair? Is this an unrealistic stance - does it porrly reflect on my ability to perform complex rational thought?
Until I see an apple fall up, I'm going to remain firm in my convictions of reality. Gravity is what gravity is.
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Feb 12, 2004 9:22:46 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with hopefulness or lying to ourselves about the nature of people. I'm as pessimistically skeptical as the next person, and I've also seen my share of cardboard-cutout theists (and atheists!) who are the same from one person to the next (as well as those who do not fit the "model"). Maybe Magonus is genuine and maybe he isn't. Who cares...the principle applies just as well to everyone else too. There is still no need to resort to useless measures like name-calling. Like Renee said, it accomplishes nothing. Stick with the arguments, and be that logically-minded, rational person. If someone turns out to be a complete flake, then their inability and/or unwillingness to provide decent arguments and counterarguments will provide a more-than-adequate proof of their flakiness. It only serves to weaken one's own credibility to engage in name-calling, as nothing else pulls a discussion farther and faster away from the intelligent discourse we would like to achieve. Also...Sean, Renee, Magonus....thanks!
|
|