Sad State of Affairs

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]vroom wrote:
Steveo, saw your on-topic posts.

Just wanted to say that trolling isn’t defined by what you believe… it’s defined by methods and results.

Anyhow, a note on ignoring threads. It can be hard to do. You know that there are people out there reading them, getting what each us alternately considers wrong or right information and developing opinions and attitudes based on them.

Sometimes it is hard to watch a ‘drive by shooting’ of reality and not try to intervene.

Soooo… (looking for other politics threads to pick fights in)[/quote]

That’s exactly it, man. Some people feel differently to you on almost every topic that exists (except training, i assume) so there will either be a conflict, or we must ignore each other. Obviously the conflict could be ‘i read that…’, ‘i saw …in …’ or it could be like most conflicts in here- ‘disagree with me? Fuck you you punk’

This whole sentiment (not the OP) that only ‘old’ or longer-reading members of T-Nation have any validity isn’t justified. Like you said rainjack, you earn respect.

Al Durr made a good point too [quote]If you don’t like a post, you should just simply ignore it. If it bothers you that much, say your piece and then leave. The only people that it truly annoys is those who can’t let things go and feel a need to try to force their views on others. These are usually pretty sad individuals that deserve pity.[/quote]

I guess i’m guilty of that, too.

And good point rainjack- [quote]
And…I just gotta laugh at “imposed quality metrics”. Good sounding words that kinda mean censorship if taken to the extreme.[/quote]

I’m not sure that is a good idea. THAT in itself is a topic of debate worthy of this forum.

The problem is each ‘side’ ‘knows’ they’re justified in their opinion. Personally, i still would never try to preach to anyone about anything less important than life-and-death matters.

This whole forum is a microcosm of the world in general

102

Hahahhahaha…Nice post Vroom.

I would have thrown a “fuck” or two in there for some emphasis, but otherwise my hat’s off.

I agree 100%. He does not wish to debate about religion, as shown by his insistance to back himself up with anything but the Bible. When the Bible’s credibility is questioned, he backs it up with more Bible0-a terrible debating technique!

If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?

103

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?[/quote]

This is precisely why I don’t get into religious debates. The bible is not a point of debate. It is a point of faith.

To use the bible as proof for anything in a secular debate is not going to prove anything.

I could back up every article of my faith with biblical precedent, but what point would it serve in a political debate?

I’m glad SteveO is so steadfast in his beliefs - but sometimes one has to wonder exactly what they have to do with the price of tea in China.

104

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hahahhahaha…Nice post Vroom.

I would have thrown a “fuck” or two in there for some emphasis, but otherwise my hat’s off.

I agree 100%. He does not wish to debate about religion, as shown by his insistance to back himself up with anything but the Bible. When the Bible’s credibility is questioned, he backs it up with more Bible0-a terrible debating technique!

If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?[/quote]

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

105

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hahahhahaha…Nice post Vroom.

I would have thrown a “fuck” or two in there for some emphasis, but otherwise my hat’s off.

I agree 100%. He does not wish to debate about religion, as shown by his insistance to back himself up with anything but the Bible. When the Bible’s credibility is questioned, he backs it up with more Bible0-a terrible debating technique!

If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with an agenda in itself. For the most part, an agenda means that you have a position on a topic and a plan to address this position. It only becomes a problem when you try to force your agenda on others.

I think the big issue is when you have an agenda and you enter into a debate about a specific topic using data that is tainted with that agenda, when someone questions you on that data, you can’t come back with more data that is tainted from that very same agenda and expect people to buy into it. The validity and credibility of all the data is going to be questioned. It happens on here all the time.

This is the inherent problem with debates involving religious beliefs. The only way to support religious beliefs is by having faith in those religious beliefs. This is something that does not lend well to logic and reason. It is an emotional position and either you believe or you don’t believe. I tend to stay away from these types of debates because they are a long, slow circular bridge to nowhere.

106

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

[/quote]

I agree completely with this. Other than occasionally playing Devil’s advocate, everyone here is promoting an agenda. Most of us are not teenagers being exposed to these broad themes for the first time. We have looked at all sides over the years and come to our own conclusions. We come here and promote them.

I believe that vroom, Steveo, and everyone else thinks the world would be a better place if everyone thought the same way they do. That’s an agenda.

107

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hahahhahaha…Nice post Vroom.

I would have thrown a “fuck” or two in there for some emphasis, but otherwise my hat’s off.

I agree 100%. He does not wish to debate about religion, as shown by his insistance to back himself up with anything but the Bible. When the Bible’s credibility is questioned, he backs it up with more Bible0-a terrible debating technique!

If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

[/quote]

You missed the point.

You can’t argue politics by bringing up the Bible, being as belief in the Bible is all about [b]faith[/b].

He doesn’t debate, he just condemns, and it is ridiculous. He is a simple troll, nothing more.

108

[quote]doogie wrote:

I agree completely with this. Other than occasionally playing Devil’s advocate, everyone here is promoting an agenda. Most of us are not teenagers being exposed to these broad themes for the first time. We have looked at all sides over the years and come to our own conclusions. We come here and promote them.

I believe that vroom, Steveo, and everyone else thinks the world would be a better place if everyone thought the same way they do. That’s an agenda.

[/quote]

Politics is one thing. Religion is another.

Arguing which God is better, which book of fairy tales is more credible…it is ridiculous. There is no historical precedent, there is no proof in any way, and it is completely illogical to sit here and keep doing this.

When it comes down to it, you’re arguing shit that someone conjured up and wrote down a thousand years ago. We may as well be talking about UFOs, because there is no proof one way or the other. Basically, everyone of every religion thinks that they are superior because they believe what they believe, and everyone else is going to hell.

I’m guilty of this with Catholicism, as Protestantism is and always will seem a little off to me. Either way, I’m not bringing it up every fucking second on a politics board.

There are boards for this kind of crap- GO FIND THEM!

109

[quote]doogie wrote:
I believe that vroom, Steveo, and everyone else thinks the world would be a better place if everyone thought the same way they do. That’s an agenda.
[/quote]

An opinion is not an agenda. An agenda involves more than having and expressing thoughts on topics as they come up.

Personally, and I don’t know how to explain it better than the following examples, I feel that differences are both good and required.

I lived in a fairly secluded place at one point. If you, or I, were the only person in the single bar - the only pasttime there, it would be deadly boring. If someone walked in who you did not like, or trust, and who was generally an asshole, it was better than sitting there yourself and you’d pass polite conversation.

Similarly, you have people like Rainjack and I who don’t see eye to eye very often. While I might be annoyed at his need to hurl rocks and avoid contributing in a constructive way to most conversations, and we disagree strongly a lot of the time, I think there is a mutual respect there. I neither hate him nor like him, and that type of interaction is a needed part of life also.

Anyway, to get back to the point, an agenda would be trying to get a certain person elected, trying to get someone impeached or otherwise working towards some goal, like prosyletizing or spamming commercial money making opportunities. Simply talking about things from your left or right point of view isn’t an agenda.

In a public forum like this, it would probably be appropriate if you don’t wear your agenda such that people can see it… it should at least be disguisable as a personal opinion.

110

[quote]doogie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

I agree completely with this. Other than occasionally playing Devil’s advocate, everyone here is promoting an agenda. Most of us are not teenagers being exposed to these broad themes for the first time. We have looked at all sides over the years and come to our own conclusions. We come here and promote them.

I believe that vroom, Steveo, and everyone else thinks the world would be a better place if everyone thought the same way they do. That’s an agenda.

[/quote]

Damn it Doogie stop agreeing with me, it’s freaking me out!

But you do seem to have gotten smarter in your last post? Hummm!

111

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hahahhahaha…Nice post Vroom.

I would have thrown a “fuck” or two in there for some emphasis, but otherwise my hat’s off.

I agree 100%. He does not wish to debate about religion, as shown by his insistance to back himself up with anything but the Bible. When the Bible’s credibility is questioned, he backs it up with more Bible0-a terrible debating technique!

If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?

Irish, what is wrong with having an agenda? You make it sound as if anyone with an opinion or something they believe in should not be listened to. You believe a well thought out and researched opinion (agenda) is not as valuable as someone just spouting shit off the top of their head?

Having an agenda just means that you believe in something, having no agenda means you probably either don’t care about anything or you just follow the crowd. Either of the later I believe are much worse then having an agenda.

I’m not saying Steveo’s approach is the best, so it would make sense to hit him on that account. But don’t slam him because he has an agenda.

You missed the point.

You can’t argue politics by bringing up the Bible, being as belief in the Bible is all about [b]faith[/b].

He doesn’t debate, he just condemns, and it is ridiculous. He is a simple troll, nothing more.[/quote]

Well I guess that is the issue. His posts are not political in nature, they are his profession of faith, which is great. The problem is (as Al stated) faith is difficult to discuss or debate. But I disagree with the idea that faith is separate from logic and reason. The evidence of faith is seen in the real world in real and measurable ways. If you don’t believe this look into how new medications are tested for efficacy. They determine if something works based on its performance in a clinical trial against a placebo. A placebo only works because the subject has FAITH that it will work.

And an interesting fact about this process is that while the placebo effect is used as a benchmark in pharmaceutical research science has little understanding of the actual psychoneurotic process that allows a placebo to work.

So there are a lot of things in this world that demonstrate the logic and reason of faith and these are things that current logic and reason cannot scientifically explain.

112

I’ll address several of the recnt posts, because I am amazed at some of the mental gymnastics that are going on to attempt to couch me in terms of a troll or someone who has “outside motivation,” etc.

My motivation to post comes from a Biblical Worldview, but that is INTERNAL MOTIVATION, not external. Vroom brought up the analogy of commercialism. If I were selling something, I am gaining something in return, namely potential income. That is outside motivation. On the other hand, because I believe the Bible and have been saved, I am motivated internally to share my faith in whatever form I can.

These public forums are open to everyone that wishes to post their ideas about a wide range of subjects.

The fact is that the hate that is directed to me is just because I am a Christian that will not keep silent about his faith. It is that simple.

It is the height of hypocracy to spew garbage that I should be banned from these forums for telling others how they might know God, while those who use foul language and hate should remain on the board.

These boards do not belong to any individual, but to all who post.

Grow up, get a life, and recognize that in the free world, open discussion, debate, proclaimation, and yes, even preaching, can be done openly and in all public forums.

113

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
If I took something off of Bill Maher’s website, the creibility is immediately questioned because he has an agenda. I can’t back up the questioning by using more shit from Bill Maher. So then why is SteveO allowed?

This is precisely why I don’t get into religious debates. The bible is not a point of debate. It is a point of faith.

To use the bible as proof for anything in a secular debate is not going to prove anything.

I could back up every article of my faith with biblical precedent, but what point would it serve in a political debate?

I’m glad SteveO is so steadfast in his beliefs - but sometimes one has to wonder exactly what they have to do with the price of tea in China.

[/quote]

I dont agree with you much on most things, but im very glad I can at least believe I see your very good point.

Respect, or faith is a Shield, not a Sword. You’ll never catch me bringing up religious faith against anyone on T-Nation’s forums or elsewhere. I would expect the same respect for me, but Im not that naive.

I wonder what one has to benefit from such an argument anyway. I have had plenty of discussions on faith, morals, ethics, reason, and religion, and despite a few understandings, none has changed my mind. I wonder why most of us wave the carpet for the bulls to charge when we end up in a stalemate anyway. Points are points, no matter who says them. I agree with most said by Vroom and Prof-X and a few handfull of others, but if I could take a vote, I really want to see the percentage of posters on the forum of who has been influenced enough to change their decision or political orientation.

If we could keep faith personal and posters on topic, we’d be doing better then before, and possibly better then some of the symantics on news shows. The problem with that is, keeping everyone on the same page… Including myself, it just seems like sometimes alot of us just have nothing to say at all, so we fill the space with tubesteakboogie and pick fights for the sake of defending our beliefs that werent even for discussion to begin with.

Awaiting your return fire…

114

Steveo, is funny that you don’t understand the discussion going on here either. Silly fool.

115

[quote]vroom wrote:
Steveo, is funny that you don’t understand the discussion going on here either. Silly fool.[/quote]

Oh, I understand it perfectly. My statements remain – grow up!

116

We live in a time where no one likes to be told that “this is the way” or “that is the way.”

You can see it on other threads as well. If someone states that there is only one way to train, they usually get attacked and with good reason.

Steveo has been outspoken regarding his faith. If he was outspoken about any other topic he would have also been attacked.

That his topic is Jesus Christ that only intensifies the attacks. It’s also biblical that any who speak out for Christ will be attacked…nothing new here.

Let’s not kid ourselves, most of the folks who are attacking steveo are atheists, or agnostic.

117

[quote]ZEB wrote:
We live in a time where no one likes to be told that “this is the way” or “that is the way.”

You can see it on other threads as well. If someone states that there is only one way to train, they usually get attacked and with good reason.

Steveo has been outspoken regarding his faith. If he was outspoken about any other topic he would have also been attacked.

That his topic is Jesus Christ that only intensifies the attacks. It’s also biblical that any who speak out for Christ will be attacked…nothing new here.

Let’s not kid ourselves, most of the folks who are attacking steveo are atheists, or agnostic.

[/quote]

I don’t care what religion everyone is. No one else tries to force feed it to everyone on this site.

If someone came on and said that we would burn because we did not worship Allah and called us infidels, the FBI would be tracing his fucking IP address and he’d be arrested later today.

The fact is, no one is as arrogant as he is. That’s why he gets attacked.

Fuck him.

118

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Well I guess that is the issue. His posts are not political in nature, they are his profession of faith, which is great. The problem is (as Al stated) faith is difficult to discuss or debate. But I disagree with the idea that faith is separate from logic and reason. The evidence of faith is seen in the real world in real and measurable ways. If you don’t believe this look into how new medications are tested for efficacy. They determine if something works based on its performance in a clinical trial against a placebo. A placebo only works because the subject has FAITH that it will work.

And an interesting fact about this process is that while the placebo effect is used as a benchmark in pharmaceutical research science has little understanding of the actual psychoneurotic process that allows a placebo to work.

So there are a lot of things in this world that demonstrate the logic and reason of faith and these are things that current logic and reason cannot scientifically explain.
[/quote]

I’m not saying God does or doesn’t exist, and I agree that there is much that science still can’t explain, and that’s why I lean to the thought that there is a God, and probably in the Judeo-Christian vein.

However, SteveO does not debate religion, he tells others they will burn in hell for not agreeing with him.

The base question is still unanswered- you can’t debate religion backing it up with the Bible. You can debate the existence of God, but not which religion is cooler. It’s not possible to do logically

119

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We live in a time where no one likes to be told that “this is the way” or “that is the way.”

You can see it on other threads as well. If someone states that there is only one way to train, they usually get attacked and with good reason.

Steveo has been outspoken regarding his faith. If he was outspoken about any other topic he would have also been attacked.

That his topic is Jesus Christ that only intensifies the attacks. It’s also biblical that any who speak out for Christ will be attacked…nothing new here.

Let’s not kid ourselves, most of the folks who are attacking steveo are atheists, or agnostic.

I don’t care what religion everyone is. No one else tries to force feed it to everyone on this site.

If someone came on and said that we would burn because we did not worship Allah and called us infidels, the FBI would be tracing his fucking IP address and he’d be arrested later today.

The fact is, no one is as arrogant as he is. That’s why he gets attacked.

Fuck him.[/quote]

And you are?

Agnostic I believe…

120

I dont delve into politics much but I used to like to read the good debates of this forum. Unfortunately its litered every other post with religious propaganda which makes shuffling through that bullshit tiresome and just not worth it anymore.

Reading a good debate between intelligent people, regardless of their stance is always educational. But once it degrades into basically “your mother” arguements its lost its appeal. Unfortunately thats what it has become for the most part.