[quote]vroom wrote:
AAAAAWWW, sounds like another angry liberal.
Angry? Nice try!
It was pretty funny and tongue in cheek if you weren’t offended by it like a cheerleader would be.
Don’t be saying democrats don’t have a sense of humor too quickly next time a satirical piece gets replies like your own…[/quote]
I thought this was going to be funny after seeing the pic at the top. But it was really just whiny. The last few paragraphs were the only part slightly humorous. However, the rest of the little poem proceeding it was equally absurd as the only funny parts were. If anyone is offended, it’s at the expense of our sense of good humor.
-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?
It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.
Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.
So please, reattach yourself to reality.
You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.
Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”
Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.
Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?
Well first, homosexuals are also characterized by what they do…you may object to their behavior or you may not, but it is still a behavior regardless of whether they have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Secondly, analogies are never perfect and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of those who disparage entire groups of people on the basis of their beliefs, and then turn around and claim moral superiority becuase of their more “tolerant” nature.
[/quote]
Tolerant people (whether you choose to put it in quotation marks or not) ARE morally superior to groups whose beliefs, no matter where they come from, degrade other people based on skin color, sex, orientation, etc.
-Probably for the same reasons that a difference in opinion is ALWAYS caricatured by the Right as proof that the Left strives for a state of lawless anarchy, with illegal-alien- communist gay orgies going on inside abortion clinics. Oh, that’s right it isn’t.
So - your characterization right there implies that doing such caricatures are wrong and shouldn’t be done. So, if you think they are wrong, why do you do still do it?[/quote]
-??? My point here is to say that neither side ALWAYS generalizes, as you claim.[quote]
Making broad generalizations may look like you’re proving some kind of point, but you aren’t. You’re merely demonstrating you closed-mindedness to all. There’s nothing romantic about that.
Everyone uses broad generalizations to make points. How many people have used the term ‘neocon’ around here as a catchall for anything hated right of center, even though a ‘neoconservatism’ is a very narrow ideology that not all right of center folks share?[/quote]
-Again, not EVERYONE, but maybe the problems lie with the people who do. I understand the use of labels to describe a general viewpoint. Don’t you at least think the viewpoint should be described accurately? That goes for both sides.
[quote]
So, as to your charge of ‘closed mindedness’ because I - or anyone around here - might generalize is stupid. Everyone does it, and it can be useful as long as it doesn’t devolve into a pure ad hominem attack.[/quote]
-As it usually does.
[quote]
The only people consistently bitching about labels are those with the self-esteem of a pre-pubescent 9th grader. Every sane person who posts here is fully aware of the limits of labels, but still use them as a means of discussion. No need to constantly whine that ‘you can’t put people in boxes!’
Put Boston Barrister, Zap, Rainjack, Zeb and myself in a bag and you will get some very different characters and different versions of conservatism. But I am not gonna cry like a 9 year old with a skinned knee if someone makes a generalization about the Right - I’ll offer up my explanation, but I don’t reject the label outright as some infringement of my delicate sensibilities.[/quote]
-Nor do I. Other the point above, I haven’t even MENTIONED labels or “being in a box”. So where are you getting all this anger from? Are you having a hard time following the conversation?
[quote]
The real bottom line: The citizens of our country have been whipped into a state of fear the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the start of the Cold War.
Hogwash. First and foremost, after 9/11, there is every reason to sober up and be wary of attack. We should be a little scared. Second, by the same rationale, if a John Kerry tells voters that a second Bush term will make the world less safe - which he did, often - how is that not playing on a ‘campaign of fear’ by your own standards? Trying to scare people into voting Democrat because Bush is gonna get us all killed?
-I couldn’t give two shits about John Kerry. Where did you get the idea that he was some kind of liberal Messiah? Both sides play the same game.
-Did Lincoln invade another country? I must have missed that one. Nice dismissal at the end. Shows you’re really open.
[quote]
That’s the reality. I’m suprised you can’t see it from your high horse.
I have several horses, and they average about 16 hand. How is the view from your mule?[/quote]
-Being the wordsmith that you are, I expected something better in the last paragraph. Maybe next time.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance.
It happened when extremist from BOTH sides of the political arena managed to take over their respective parties.[/quote]
I largely agree with you on that but I think that largely depends on how one defines “extreme”…
[quote]
It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.
Actually, tolerance is the capacity for respecting the opinions or practices of others. It’s that lack of respect for others that has caused so many issues in this country. Lack of respect is why you have such animosity brewing in the country. Lack of respect is why people with opposing viewpoints end up getting into shouting matches rather than true political discourse.[/quote]
If by respect, you mean the capacity to completely disagree with someone (and/or their behavior) and at the same time veiw them as having as much worth and as having just as much a right to express their veiws and live their own lives as anyone else…then I agree.
[quote]
Also, there are many that identify themselves as being on the Right that believe that many of those that identify themselves as being on the Left don’t possess any moral/ethical/religious beliefs. Because of this, those on the Right feel that they can dismiss anything that comes from those on the Left simply because they don’t agree with their viewpoint on a particular issue or issues. Moral/ethical/religious beliefs are not the sole province of one group over another.[/quote]
Agreed. However, it works both ways. The Left has a worldveiw…and they think they are just as right as does the “Right.” In short, those on the Left feel that they can dismiss anything that comes from those on the Right simply because they don’t agree with their viewpoint on a particular issue or issues. My point in all of this, is that no one side has any advantage over the other when it comes to being tolerant; to claim that the Left, as compared to the right, isnt as forcful in pushing its woldview on others, is just plain wrong.
[quote]
Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.
I totally agree.
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”
And I find it pretty funny that some ultra-right wingers fail to realize that their placing people in neat little boxes (ABBer’s, thinktards, whackjobs etc.) and shutting their minds down when someone presents a different veiwpoint than their own without truly listening to what is being said, and then trying to get into a pissing match to prove their superiority, are no better than the ultra-leftist that is calling people who have religious beliefs “bible thumpers” and “jesus freaks”. In other words, there are psychos on both sides. [/quote]
Agreed…and that was my point exactly.
[quote]
Personally, I think that the whole Left/Right, choosing sides bullshit is ridiculous. There is a small percentage of powerful, connected extremists on both sides that are using this game to control the country and it is sucking the rest of us down the tubes. This is why I refuse to identify myself with either side despite the fact that many extremist-attitude posters on here want to place me in their own catagory because I don’t agree with them. [/quote]
Agreed. I also have a problem with the left-right paradigm as a whole; it is an inaccurate disrcription of the political spectrum.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
-Again, not EVERYONE, but maybe the problems lie with the people who do. I understand the use of labels to describe a general viewpoint. Don’t you at least think the viewpoint should be described accurately? That goes for both sides.[/quote]
But this far away from my original point.
My original point is that a right wiger disagreeing with you is not a sign of a looming fascist state, no matter how bad you want it to be.
Super. If your attacks aren’t partisan, make it known.
You suck at this game. Whether or not Lincoln invaded another country is irrelevant to whether or not he should have declared habeas corpus.
As for the ‘end’ that showed you I was ‘really open’, I was just saving you the time of having to dismiss what is a thorny and complicated topic - civil liberties in wartime - with a stock epithet.
Naah, I don’t think of myself as much of a ‘wordsmith’, so sorry to disappoint, but I do think it helps your writing when you read a book that has more than pages to color.
-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?
It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.
Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.
So please, reattach yourself to reality.
You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.
Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”
Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.
Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?
Well first, homosexuals are also characterized by what they do…you may object to their behavior or you may not, but it is still a behavior regardless of whether they have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Secondly, analogies are never perfect and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of those who disparage entire groups of people on the basis of their beliefs, and then turn around and claim moral superiority becuase of their more “tolerant” nature.
Tolerant people (whether you choose to put it in quotation marks or not) ARE morally superior to groups whose beliefs, no matter where they come from, degrade other people based on skin color, sex, orientation, etc.
[/quote]
Of course they are. And whether you want to admit it or not, intolerancy is a human condition not relegated to one side of the political devide. People on boths sides are intolerant and people on both sides often fail to realize it. I think both sides tend to recognize intolerance in the other side, often times when it isnt even there, far more than they recognize true intolerance in themselves.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
edgecrusher wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Thanks for dumbing down the forum jlesk.
Keep up the good work!
hahahahaha.
You’ve gotta love the neolibs.
Neolib? what the fuck is that. I guess people are following Bush’s lead and inventing words. If you meant neo liberal then you are not to smart.[/quote]
Am I also following Bush’s lead if I create new definitions for words?
You know, like using the word “to” as opposed to an appropriate adverb like “very” or “too?”
-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?
It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.
Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.
So please, reattach yourself to reality.
You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.
Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”
Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.
Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?
Well first, homosexuals are also characterized by what they do…you may object to their behavior or you may not, but it is still a behavior regardless of whether they have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Secondly, analogies are never perfect and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of those who disparage entire groups of people on the basis of their beliefs, and then turn around and claim moral superiority becuase of their more “tolerant” nature.
[/quote]
The true leftists do not discriminate against anyone based on race, color, creed, or gender. Its kind of one of the tenets. I will argue with anyone that says that women, gays, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, etc. should not be treated equally.
My major problem with religios folks who can be characterized as Jesus Freaks is that they try and shove their beliefs down my throat. I have a couple friends like this who are born agains, and they irritate the shit out of me. It is not the religion itself that bothers me, it is the fact that they seem to feel that they have a right to try to convert every fucking person they talk to, and that is not fair to do to anyone.
The reason I don’t talk politics to many people (aside from here) is because I feel bad putting people on the spot and trying to prove them wrong. However, the HolyRollers feel they are the mouthpieces of the Lord himself, and that I have to listen to it as they intentionally bring shit up (like abortion or gay marriage) and try to pick a fight about it.
I don’t care what religion anyone is; as Thomas Jefferson said, “It is not injurious to me if my neighbor believes there is one God or twenty”. However, pushing your beliefs on others is injurious and irritating. So don’t expect me to be nice or cordial or give a fuck what anyone is saying when they start bringing the damn Bible into every day conversations. That is my bone of contention right there. Keep your fucking religion to yourself, cause I don’t care
-Since you’ve so adroitly pointed out “our” flaws, I guess we should all fall in line with the rest of the scared little sheep and accept whatever the shepard tells us. Welcome to pre-Nazi Germany.
Why is a difference in opinion in politics always caricatured by the Left as a sign that the Man wants control of your mind to do things His way but by differing, you are standing against Fascism by martyring yourself in dissent?
It is a romantic view Leftists -particuarly young ones - adopt because it makes them feel cool.
Bottom line: not every political disagreement on ‘values’ is a sign of ‘pre-war Germany’ no matter how desparately you want it to be.
So please, reattach yourself to reality.
You bring up a good point Thunder. I often wonder when tolerance got confused with acceptance. It seems that many on the Left think if you have definitive moral/ethical/religious beliefs, you are somehow “intolerant.” Tolerance is the allowance of veiws different from one’s own.
Granted, there are a number of Christians, Conservatives, Neocons, or whatever, who are wholly intolerant of differing veiw points, but there are just as many on the Left.
I find it pretty funny that some ultra- leftists fail to realize that when they characterize an entire group of people as “rednecks,” “jesus freaks,” ect, they are no better than the whacko holding a sign that says “god hates fags.”
Not a proper analogy. “Rednecks” or “Jesus Freaks” are characterized by what they do, not by who they are. No one using the phrase “Jesus freak” means all Christians. They mean those who view their entire lives (and ours) through the narrow prism of their interpretation of a 2,000 year old book.
Why is it not okay to call assholes assholes?
Well first, homosexuals are also characterized by what they do…you may object to their behavior or you may not, but it is still a behavior regardless of whether they have a genetic predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex. Secondly, analogies are never perfect and I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of those who disparage entire groups of people on the basis of their beliefs, and then turn around and claim moral superiority becuase of their more “tolerant” nature.[/quote]
Sorry about any spelling mistakes…Im not in the mood to spell check.
Here is the thing though: I could make that argument about Christians as well. Its way to easy too dismiss bad behavior if all you have to say is, “A true (fill in the blank) doesnt behave that way.” A true Chistian doesnt discriminate either, thats not to say many dont, but a true Christian doesnt hate anyone and they (myself included) certainly arent supposed to deride or belittle people because their behavior may be sinful. However, I admit that many Christians look down on those who disagree with them and all Im trying to get the leftists on this board to admit is that people on their side of the fence are just as apt to making that mistake.
[quote]
My major problem with religios folks who can be characterized as Jesus Freaks is that they try and shove their beliefs down my throat.[/quote]
Can you see how the term “Jesus Freak” might be offensive to Christians who dont go around shoving our religion down people’s throats? First, define what it means to shove something down someones throat. If you mean standing on a street corner handing out flyers, leftisd do that too; if you mean voicing your opinion in a classroom (like abortion is a sin), I’ve had many “liberals” exclaim, in class, that neo-cons are racist, Bush is evil, capitalism is immoral, ect; if you mean buying airtime in an effort to convince people that your world veiw is the correct world veiw, well, if you live in Socal, you know that millions of $ were just spent effectively flooding the airwaves with liberal propoganda (not that there is anything wrong with that); if you mean you have been put on the spot after someone finds out you arent “saved,” I got news for you, I’ve been put on the spot when people find out Im not “saved”…except in my case, Im not yet saved from the silly, archaic notion that the government that governs best, is the one that governs least. I could go on, but I think you get my point. People who go around shoving their world veiw down someone’s throat all the time; irrespective of party, religion, or philosophy…its simply human nature.
My point is this: when you call someone a “Jesus Freak,” you are using a term that has a very loose meaning and means different things to different people. To many, I am a “Jesus Freak.” I go to Church on Sunday (not as often as I should), I take the Bible very literally, and yes, if the topic is brought up in an appropriate environment, I will share my beliefs.
So when you use the term, whether you mean it or not, you are painting with a very large brush. And tuth be told, I could care less. I just dont like it when people try to claim that their side is somehow “above it all.”
[quote]
I have a couple friends like this who are born agains, and they irritate the shit out of me. It is not the religion itself that bothers me, it is the fact that they seem to feel that they have a right to try to convert every fucking person they talk to, and that is not fair to do to anyone.[/quote]
If you tell them you arent interested and they keep pushing then you are right, they arent being fair.
[quote]
The reason I don’t talk politics to many people (aside from here) is because I feel bad putting people on the spot and trying to prove them wrong. However, the HolyRollers feel they are the mouthpieces of the Lord himself, and that I have to listen to it as they intentionally bring shit up (like abortion or gay marriage) and try to pick a fight about it.[/quote]
Im glad you arent the type that shoves things down people’s throats, but as I pointed out, many on the Left are are (throwing red paint on a woman wearing a fur coat for instance).
[quote]
I don’t care what religion anyone is; as Thomas Jefferson said, “It is not injurious to me if my neighbor believes there is one God or twenty”. However, pushing your beliefs on others is injurious and irritating. So don’t expect me to be nice or cordial or give a fuck what anyone is saying when they start bringing the damn Bible into every day conversations. That is my bone of contention right there. Keep your fucking religion to yourself, cause I don’t care [/quote]
I dont expect you to be nice…like I said, I dont really care what anyone says about my beliefs or people who share my beliefs. I’ll stick up for those I believe arent being treated fairly but otherwise, I dont care. Just dont act like people on your side of the aisle arent guilty of the same crap.
Almost all of your arguments fall out the window when you bring in the qualifying statement… “if the topic is brought up in an appropriate environment”.
This is the key difference between people that have an opinion and “Jesus Freaks”, “Political Freaks”, “Sports Freaks”, “Computer Freaks” or any other type of “Freak”.
Of course, this is my interpretation and there are people with other opinions on it, I’m not trying to suggest otherwise.
You see, what the term “Freak” does is imply a very zealous subclass. I’m afraid the generic term liberal is used by many to imply a zealousness when it doesn’t belong within the general phrase at all.
This is a key difference between what you arguing and whether or not “liberals” are committing the same thing by attempting to bring to attention an extreme zealousness of fanaticism with respect to belief or expression.
This is a politics forum, expression of political opinion is expected and appropriate. Going to crazy ends in order to squelch a type of viewpoint or continuously acting as a cheerleader for either viewpoint might however qualify someone for a tag beyond simple liberal of conservative.
There must be some way to ascribe overbearing fanaticism as a shorthand tag, without resorting to “lumping”. Aren’t “neo” and “ultra” used in this fashion to show outlying opinion?
[quote]vroom wrote:
To many, I am a “Jesus Freak.” I go to Church on Sunday (not as often as I should), I take the Bible very literally, and yes, if the topic is brought up in an appropriate environment, I will share my beliefs.
You don’t qualify as a Jesus Freak.
Almost all of your arguments fall out the window when you bring in the qualifying statement… “if the topic is brought up in an appropriate environment”.
This is the key difference between people that have an opinion and “Jesus Freaks”, “Political Freaks”, “Sports Freaks”, “Computer Freaks” or any other type of “Freak”.
Of course, this is my interpretation and there are people with other opinions on it, I’m not trying to suggest otherwise.
You see, what the term “Freak” does is imply a very zealous subclass. I’m afraid the generic term liberal is used by many to imply a zealousness when it doesn’t belong within the general phrase at all.
This is a key difference between what you arguing and whether or not “liberals” are committing the same thing by attempting to bring to attention an extreme zealousness of fanaticism with respect to belief or expression.
This is a politics forum, expression of political opinion is expected and appropriate. Going to crazy ends in order to squelch a type of viewpoint or continuously acting as a cheerleader for either viewpoint might however qualify someone for a tag beyond simple liberal of conservative.
There must be some way to ascribe overbearing fanaticism as a shorthand tag, without resorting to “lumping”. Aren’t “neo” and “ultra” used in this fashion to show outlying opinion?
By the way, Jesus Freaks are annoying as hell… ;)[/quote]
I couldnt agree with you more, Vroom. I think whats being missed here is that I am in no way saying there arent Jesus Freaks and I am in no way saying people shouldnt feel free to ascribe fanaticism when they see it. Your point about liberal being used to imply zealousness is all too true. “Conservatives” often use the word as if anyone who is liberal is somehow an anti-American communist. However, will you agree that those on the Left often commit the same error? The term “neo-con” is used in much the same way, is it not?
And as far as my qualifier goes, I must ask, what then constitutes “an appropriate environment?” Is it any less appropriate to hand out religious flyers on a corner than it is to hand out political? how about religious opinions in class as opposed to political? In each of these casses, many consider the former “shoving veiws down the throats of others,” while the latter is simply an expression of one’s views.
Again, my only point is that both sides of every issue, regardless of issue, often mischaracterize the opposing side, accuse the opposing side of doing the same, and then fail to realize they are guilty of it themselves. Yet, for some reason, I cant get anyone to admit that…and that only proves my point further.
Isn’t it possibly that people can be equally obnoxious forcing secular views down your throat?
And do you think this should be treated differently from people forcing religious views down your throat?[/quote]
Thunder,
It is very possible. In fact, anyone that is so extremist in their views that they feel a need to shove them down your throat, ridicule and deride you for your own views and try to brow beat you into believing in what they believe is ridiculously obnoxious and needs to have the shit slapped out of them.
LOL, I have to say it is inappropriate when you can’t escape.
You know, you get on a long bus or train ride, have to share a seat, your walkman batteries are dead and the asshole sitting beside you wants to discuss Jesus or politics or some other single issue for the next 30 hours.
It’s a good question though.
I don’t think something is inappropriate to voice as an opinion just because you don’t like to hear it, disagree with it or are angered by it. It should take a bit more than that.
Hmm, without rereading the thread, I’m going to guess it is in some way related to religion.
Why does the phrase bother you? Are you a self-loathing bible thumper or something? Oh, look, I used the phrase again!
Whether or not a phrase is inappropriate will have a lot to do with the context of it’s use and how it used within that context.
Did I label you with that phrase?
I’m been labelled a thinktard, an ultra liberal, a moral relativist, anti-american, an idiot, and people that agree with my viewpoint have been labelled “a band of idiots”, “my posse” and a host of other things. Not in general, but personally, when I don’t agree that any of those labels apply.
Do you think that perhaps such labelling has been uncalled for?
Who did I label a Bible thumper and what was I implying with my use of the term? Answer that realistically and I’ll let you know if I think it was uncalled for.
I think you are just uptight about religion and are holding a grudge about something when you do far worse, except that it isn’t in a religious setting, so you don’t see it as the same.
[quote]vroom wrote:
So in a discussion abhout evolution v. creation using the term “Bible thumper” would have been uncalled for?
Hmm, without rereading the thread, I’m going to guess it is in some way related to religion.
Why does the phrase bother you? Are you a self-loathing bible thumper or something? Oh, look, I used the phrase again!
Whether or not a phrase is inappropriate will have a lot to do with the context of it’s use and how it used within that context.
Did I label you with that phrase?
I’m been labelled a thinktard, an ultra liberal, a moral relativist, anti-american, an idiot, and people that agree with my viewpoint have been labelled “a band of idiots”, “my posse” and a host of other things. Not in general, but personally, when I don’t agree that any of those labels apply.
Do you think that perhaps such labelling has been uncalled for?
Who did I label a Bible thumper and what was I implying with my use of the term? Answer that realistically and I’ll let you know if I think it was uncalled for.
I think you are just uptight about religion and are holding a grudge about something when you do far worse, except that it isn’t in a religious setting, so you don’t see it as the same.
Boo hoo.[/quote]
You’re the one that said it. You’re the one that seems to be keeping score everytime someone calls you something you don’t like.
I take offense when you use religous insults to label an entire side of an argument. Being that you are not religous, I can see where you might think there is no difference between religous slurs, and political insults.
You want to insult me? Go ahead. Call me names? There is only one name you can call me that I find offensive.
Other than that - I don’t think you see me whining about being called a name. You, on the otherhand, made a pseudo-art form out of your hypocrisy.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I take offense when you use religous insults to label an entire side of an argument. Being that you are not religous, I can see where yo umight think there is no difference between religous slurs, and political insults.
You may want to go back and see if that is what I actually did.
Did I say everyone who believes in creation is a bible thumper… or are you just playing your favorite game of micharacterization.
Don’t you get tired of that?[/quote]
Silly me. I am going off what you said. Are you saying I should refrain from reacting to what you say, and instead only focus on what you mean?
Like I said - I can’t look at your ass and read your mind. What you say should be exactly what you mean. It’s really not a difficult concept to grasp. But you first have to understand intellectual honesty. But that might be asking a bit much of you.
