I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
are still worthy of our moral concerns.
Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
on.
Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
write this post.
His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
which do not possess these qualities.
His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
defined by the argument itself.
And, on this Thanksgiving, I hope that all those theists are thankful
for the existence of atheists, apparently the only people capable of
coming up with any semblance of rational argument to defend the
existence of theists.
On Nov 27, 8:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev's continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it's ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev's position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind's greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade.
"Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and
assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech
to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." --Louis D. Brandeis, US
Supreme Court Justice
i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
nonhuman animals listed.
Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
a continuous supply of marlborogh.
Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
rubbed into his skin.
Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
tanks.
Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
just well, you know, it'd be funny)
On 27 Nov, 13:25, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
On Nov 27, 4:43 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> nonhuman animals listed.
> Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
> a continuous supply of marlborogh.
> Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
> rubbed into his skin.
> Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
> tanks.
> Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
> just well, you know, it'd be funny)
It makes me sad to think of the way nonhuman animals are treated. But
there you are. Some mice suffered while the antipsychotic medication
which I buy was being developed and I'm probably going to keep buying
it. Gary Francione, an influential animal rights theorist, thinks that
buying medicines which were tested on animals can be justified; it
sounds like a rationalisation to me.
I think I'd be content with saying that anyone who's ever taken
religious belief with any degree of seriousness should not be
permitted to vote. I don't think that we need to treat them in the way
we currently treat nonhuman animals.
On Nov 27, 6:43 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> nonhuman animals listed.
i totally agree that we theists should treat all non humans and more
specifically, the 'human' apes the same as we.
if they are hungry we should give food.
if they are sick we should help.
if they are...ok, you others think i am wrong! do you follow Jesus?
this is the only way!
He 'died' for them (sinners), who am i to argue.
> Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
> a continuous supply of marlborogh.
> Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
> rubbed into his skin.
> Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
> tanks.
> Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
> just well, you know, it'd be funny)
> On 27 Nov, 13:25, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > on.
> > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > which do not possess these qualities.
> > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
> On Nov 27, 4:43 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> > nonhuman animals listed.
> > Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
> > a continuous supply of marlborogh.
> > Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
> > rubbed into his skin.
> > Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
> > tanks.
> > Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
> > just well, you know, it'd be funny)
> It makes me sad to think of the way nonhuman animals are treated. But
> there you are. Some mice suffered while the antipsychotic medication
> which I buy was being developed and I'm probably going to keep buying
> it. Gary Francione, an influential animal rights theorist, thinks that
> buying medicines which were tested on animals can be justified; it
> sounds like a rationalisation to me.
> I think I'd be content with saying that anyone who's ever taken
> religious belief with any degree of seriousness should not be
> permitted to vote.
chx
it is like this. i don't vote because there is no one i CAN vote for.
what is the point voting for a criminal. they are asking me to vote
for one criminal amongst many. we have one major party and about
twenty smaller ones and they are all liars. is one liar better than
the other?
What makes you think theists have feelings? We know many non-human
animals have feelings because they react to pain, and they aren't
pathological liars so we can safely believe it is a sincere expression
of pain. Theists, on the other hand, are absolutely pathological liars
so any statement they make about having feelings only makes it less
likely that they actually do. In fact, theists are actually less
likely to be sentient than anything else we consider non-sentient when
you think about it. Should we assume a toaster has feelings as well?
On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
On Nov 27, 11:43 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> nonhuman animals listed.
See, this is why theists don't make the argument that Kippers did; it
is ludicrous for us to accept, even for the sake of argument, that we
are subhuman and prove that we deserve humane treatment simply because
someone uses quite specious reasoning to argue that we are subhuman.
Obviously, if Allan had feelings he would feel, for example, "shame"
for being Allan, "disgust" at his own existence, and "desire" to get a
gun and end his own life. The fact that Allan is posting right now is
proof he has no feelings.
On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:43 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> > nonhuman animals listed.
> See, this is why theists don't make the argument that Kippers did; it
> is ludicrous for us to accept, even for the sake of argument, that we
> are subhuman and prove that we deserve humane treatment simply because
> someone uses quite specious reasoning to argue that we are subhuman.
> i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> nonhuman animals listed.
> Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
> a continuous supply of marlborogh.
> Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
> rubbed into his skin.
> Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
> tanks.
> Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
> just well, you know, it'd be funny)
> On 27 Nov, 13:25, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > on.
> > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > which do not possess these qualities.
> > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > defined by the argument itself.
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
Dev's the yang to the ying of theist bullshit extremism (extremism
being redundant) except for the fact that Dev is being humorous
whereas theists are being serious.
On Nov 28, 3:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
feelings. My bad. :(
On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> live, Okay?
> There, how's that?
> On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > on.
> > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > which do not possess these qualities.
> > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 27, 7:14 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 6:43 pm, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> > nonhuman animals listed.
> i totally agree that we theists should treat all non humans and more
> specifically, the 'human' apes the same as we.
> if they are hungry we should give food.
> if they are sick we should help.
Jolly good. You might find these websites interesting.
No. It is possible that he never existed, and if he did he has been
dead for a very long time. There may be one or two sayings attributed
to him in the Gospels with a certain ring to them.
> this is the only way!
> He 'died' for them (sinners), who am i to argue.
He didn't have a choice, I'm afraid. He was brutally tortured to death
by a repressive government. Lots of people were. I wouldn't worry
about it. It happened a long time ago, things are a little bit better
now. I'd work on making them better still.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
Then why are you posting about you Kippers? How are you a reasonable
person by stating that this isn't Dev's point or what he is arguing
toward but i'm going to argue against it anyway.
I know theists really like to believe that everything is true because
someone wrote it down but that's just not logically sound. Dev's post
was satirical, farcical, and fictional. And so arguing against it is
stupid. You might as well be arguing that it was very cruel for the
ancient Egyptians to enslave the ancient Jews or something else that
never happened if you want to keep this up.
On Nov 27, 5:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> on.
> Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> write this post.
> His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> which do not possess these qualities.
> His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> defined by the argument itself.
Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
your position to one of childish expletive.
Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
fuckin' point?
And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
& one other groups and sub groups.
Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
beyond reproach.
Cheers big ears
Max
On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> feelings. My bad. :(
> On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> > Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> > Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> > live, Okay?
> > There, how's that?
> > On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > > on.
> > > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > > write this post.
> > > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > > which do not possess these qualities.
> > > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
suggesting that pathological liars with no consciences make the world
a better place, or that making the world a better place is a bad
thing?
On Nov 27, 4:14 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
> that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
> Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
> but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
> lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
> theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
> But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
> and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
> your position to one of childish expletive.
> Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
> fuckin' point?
> And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
> like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
> get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
> corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
> & one other groups and sub groups.
> Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
> beyond reproach.
> Cheers big ears
> Max
> On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> > conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> > right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> > to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> > irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> > the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> > the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> > obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> > feelings. My bad. :(
> > On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> > > Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> > > Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> > > live, Okay?
> > > There, how's that?
> > > On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > > > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > > > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > > > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > > > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > > > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > > > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > > > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > > > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > > > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > > > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > > > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > > > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > > > on.
> > > > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > > > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > > > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > > > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > > > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > > > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > > > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > > > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > > > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > > > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > > > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > > > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > > > write this post.
> > > > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > > > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > > > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > > > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > > > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > > > which do not possess these qualities.
> > > > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > > > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > > > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
He's just a piece of crap so will find any excuse to demand that
theists be allowed to continue to fuck up the world and atheists have
no right to fight back or defend themselves against their explicit
assault on humanity. Of course, defending the proponents of the most
harmful institution in human history somehow makes you
"compassionate"--nevermind that you're siding against the human race
by doing so. Kippers blames me for the fact that he's a piece of
garbage--obviously, he wouldn't have started this thread if he wasn't
trash, so he must just refuse to take responsibility for what he is.
Yeah, I explicitly mention on occasion that threads like "Killing
Theists vs. Making Them Slaves" are in jest, but the dishonest way
theists and those who defend them behave should raise real questions
about if its possible to deal with them peacefully without giving up
on the future of the human race.
On Nov 27, 4:04 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> Then why are you posting about you Kippers? How are you a reasonable
> person by stating that this isn't Dev's point or what he is arguing
> toward but i'm going to argue against it anyway.
> I know theists really like to believe that everything is true because
> someone wrote it down but that's just not logically sound. Dev's post
> was satirical, farcical, and fictional. And so arguing against it is
> stupid. You might as well be arguing that it was very cruel for the
> ancient Egyptians to enslave the ancient Jews or something else that
> never happened if you want to keep this up.
> On Nov 27, 5:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > on.
> > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > which do not possess these qualities.
> > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
Dev..........no coherent argument you say.........oh dear
Look mate.....the point I was making (which I though was fairly
straightforward) is that one does not need to be a theist to be a
pathological liar, hypocrite or to be without conscience. I used 'Old
Man' as an example of a theist who doesn't fall into your 'all
encompassing definition'. Does that make sense?
Are all atheists my friends, because I'm one. I wouldn't think so.
Some are arseholes, egomaniacal, greedy, dishonest etc. And some won't
like me for a host of reasons. Does that mean all atheists should be
dealt with in exactly the same way just 'cause they are atheists? No.
Dev........have you ever lied, stole, abused someone, sought advantage
or a range of other less than virtuous deeds.
Are you a fuckin' saint Dev? (Irony intended)
It's also my opinion that calling kids a 'cunt' and persisting with
the notion that people should be killed 'ipso facto' because they are
theists (who by your definition are 'all' liars and dishonest) is
getting just getting a wee bit tired mate. Yes, yes, I understand the
premise of why your'e doing it. I'm old, but not brain dead.
Sure, theists are deluded and often try to justify their faith
rationally, which by definition, cannot be done and by you creating a
debating position that supposedly mimics the 'generalised' antics and
behaviours of the other side, is fine..........But you've done it to
death son.
Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who really are the dregs of
society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a fuckin' serve, but I'm
just raising the stakes with you a bit by saying, get off the 'killing
theists' shit 'cause really, it doesn't advance our side of the
argument much at all.........in fact it detracts..........in my ever
so humble opinion.
And Dev, please don't insult me by saying my argument lacks coherancy
without demonstrating why. From my perspective it does........but if
you think it doesn't, just tell me what doesn't stack up & I'll either
argue it or I'll concede!!
And you have a lovely day too mate and please don't take any of this
to heart. But if ever you call me a 'cunt', I'll be on a the next
Qantas 747 to visit.......really, I will :)
Max
On Nov 28, 10:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
> suggesting that pathological liars with no consciences make the world
> a better place, or that making the world a better place is a bad
> thing?
> On Nov 27, 4:14 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
> > that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
> > Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
> > but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
> > lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
> > theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
> > But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
> > and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
> > your position to one of childish expletive.
> > Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
> > fuckin' point?
> > And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
> > like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
> > get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
> > corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
> > & one other groups and sub groups.
> > Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
> > beyond reproach.
> > Cheers big ears
> > Max
> > On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> > > conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> > > right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> > > to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> > > irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> > > the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> > > the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> > > obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> > > feelings. My bad. :(
> > > On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> > > > Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> > > > Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> > > > live, Okay?
> > > > There, how's that?
> > > > On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > > > > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > > > > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > > > > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > > > > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > > > > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > > > > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > > > > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > > > > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > > > > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > > > > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > > > > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > > > > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > > > > on.
> > > > > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > > > > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > > > > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > > > > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > > > > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > > > > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > > > > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > > > > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > > > > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > > > > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > > > > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > > > > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > > > > write this post.
> > > > > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > > > > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > > > > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > > > > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > > > > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > > > > which do not possess these qualities.
> > > > > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > > > > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > > > > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
OldMan was a shit, who even contested the common sense point that
religious intolerance wouldn't exist without religion. Of course
nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone is as bad as them.
Just because there are atheists, like Kippers, who are also slime who
the world would be better off without doesn't make theist behavior any
more acceptable. You are attacking a strawman if you think I'm arguing
that there aren't atheists that are just as bad. But look at checkers,
and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell me the world wouldn't
be better off if they weren't on it anymore. Either you take the
proposition that wanting the world to be a better place is okay, or it
is immoral and bad, which seems like the position you're taking. I'm
going to keep making these arguments as long as those like you keep
getting inspired to say stupid shit in response, and feed theist
hypocrisy by justifying their blatantly hypocritical double-standards.
It isn't like you know the secret to convincing theists by sweet-
talking them.
On Nov 27, 7:20 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dev..........no coherent argument you say.........oh dear
> Look mate.....the point I was making (which I though was fairly
> straightforward) is that one does not need to be a theist to be a
> pathological liar, hypocrite or to be without conscience. I used 'Old
> Man' as an example of a theist who doesn't fall into your 'all
> encompassing definition'. Does that make sense?
> Are all atheists my friends, because I'm one. I wouldn't think so.
> Some are arseholes, egomaniacal, greedy, dishonest etc. And some won't
> like me for a host of reasons. Does that mean all atheists should be
> dealt with in exactly the same way just 'cause they are atheists? No.
> Dev........have you ever lied, stole, abused someone, sought advantage
> or a range of other less than virtuous deeds.
> Are you a fuckin' saint Dev? (Irony intended)
> It's also my opinion that calling kids a 'cunt' and persisting with
> the notion that people should be killed 'ipso facto' because they are
> theists (who by your definition are 'all' liars and dishonest) is
> getting just getting a wee bit tired mate. Yes, yes, I understand the
> premise of why your'e doing it. I'm old, but not brain dead.
> Sure, theists are deluded and often try to justify their faith
> rationally, which by definition, cannot be done and by you creating a
> debating position that supposedly mimics the 'generalised' antics and
> behaviours of the other side, is fine..........But you've done it to
> death son.
> Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who really are the dregs of
> society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a fuckin' serve, but I'm
> just raising the stakes with you a bit by saying, get off the 'killing
> theists' shit 'cause really, it doesn't advance our side of the
> argument much at all.........in fact it detracts..........in my ever
> so humble opinion.
> And Dev, please don't insult me by saying my argument lacks coherancy
> without demonstrating why. From my perspective it does........but if
> you think it doesn't, just tell me what doesn't stack up & I'll either
> argue it or I'll concede!!
> And you have a lovely day too mate and please don't take any of this
> to heart. But if ever you call me a 'cunt', I'll be on a the next
> Qantas 747 to visit.......really, I will :)
> Max
> On Nov 28, 10:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
> > suggesting that pathological liars with no consciences make the world
> > a better place, or that making the world a better place is a bad
> > thing?
> > On Nov 27, 4:14 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
> > > that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
> > > Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
> > > but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
> > > lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
> > > theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
> > > But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
> > > and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
> > > your position to one of childish expletive.
> > > Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
> > > fuckin' point?
> > > And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
> > > like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
> > > get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
> > > corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
> > > & one other groups and sub groups.
> > > Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
> > > beyond reproach.
> > > Cheers big ears
> > > Max
> > > On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> > > > conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> > > > right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> > > > to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> > > > irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> > > > the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> > > > the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> > > > obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> > > > feelings. My bad. :(
> > > > On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> > > > > Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> > > > > Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> > > > > live, Okay?
> > > > > There, how's that?
> > > > > On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > > > > > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > > > > > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > > > > > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > > > > > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > > > > > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > > > > > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > > > > > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > > > > > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > > > > > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > > > > > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > > > > > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > > > > > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > > > > > on.
> > > > > > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > > > > > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > > > > > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > > > > > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > > > > > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > > > > > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > > > > > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > > > > > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > > > > > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > > > > > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > > > > > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > > > > > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > > > > > write this post.
> > > > > > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > > > > > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > > > > > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > > > > > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > > > > > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > > > > > which do not possess these qualities.
> > > > > > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > > > > > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > > > > > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> i totally agree that we should treat theists like we treat the other
> nonhuman animals listed.
> Brock should be forced to wear a gas mask through which he would smoke
> a continuous supply of marlborogh.
> Liamtoo should have his body hair shaved and highly reactive chemicals
> rubbed into his skin.
> Chx should have landmines tied to his back and forced to run under
> tanks.
> Chris have electrodes shoved up his arse( not for any scientif reason,
> just well, you know, it'd be funny)
> On 27 Nov, 13:25, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > on.
> > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and as such I see
> > no reason why they should be excluded from our ethical concerns.
> > The fact that these sentient beings cannot match the rational powers
> > of people and the fact that they cannot evaluate ethical issues (even
> > though many of them do actually have a moral code) should not mean
> > that their pain, suffering or happiness should not matter to us.
> > Now I appreciate that Dev is not totally serious with his assertions
> > on this subject but that fact is he is arguing for that position and
> > he seems to think no good arguments exist against has moved me to
> > write this post.
> > His argument actually reminds me of the anthropocentric position of
> > many theists who elevate human attributes above all others. He takes
> > two of mankind’s greatest attributes (rationality and ethics) then
> > assumes these are the greatest qualities possessed by any creature in
> > the animal kingdom and then argues for the destruction of all animals
> > which do not possess these qualities.
> > His argument displays a lack of rationality and a repulsive breed of
> > ethics which would mark out anyone who agreed with it a non-person as
> > defined by the argument itself.- Hide quoted text -
Whoops, I was wrong.............you 'are' taking all this shit
seriously............Fuckin' wound up son of a bitch aren't you mate.
Dev, I know your smart................but you're playing dumb with me
on the core aspect of what I'm on about.
Here we go.............
If two people are hypocrites, liars, dumb, arseholes, shits, perverts,
etc & one is an atheist & one is a theist and knowing both will
invariably claim otherwise (remember both are pathological liars), it
can now be safely assumed that both are not worthwhile members of our
community so therefore, according to your assertion, we should 'kill'
the theist, because their belief system underpins their aberrant
behaviour........!!
Is this right?
But do we kill the atheist too, as their behaviour is just as bad. If
not, why not?
So if 'we' do kill the atheist, then our reason for doing so can't be
based their 'non belief', but only on their behaviour, so this really
must be the key determinant, not whether they are an atheist or not.
'But all theists, by definition are liars, cheats blah
blah'....................
So are politicians, car salemen, mortgage brokers, lawyers, blah
blah...........do we kill them too, or do we try to 'assist them come
to terms with more compliant behaviours.
"But look at checkers, and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell
me the world wouldn't be better off if they weren't on it anymore"
Dev...........when you state the above mate...............are you
still claiming the premise to be "in jest" or are you actually making
the point that it would be appropriate to 'euthenase' these real
people to ensure that our communities are all the better for it?
If it's all just in jest..............then I'm just saying it's a
tired old game you're playing and not a great debating position to
hold as atheists can also fit the profile of a fuckhead etc, but if it
isn't...........well then your'e a fuckin' loony
"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt"
Cheers big fella
Max
On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> OldMan was a shit, who even contested the common sense point that
> religious intolerance wouldn't exist without religion. Of course
> nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone is as bad as them.
> Just because there are atheists, like Kippers, who are also slime who
> the world would be better off without doesn't make theist behavior any
> more acceptable. You are attacking a strawman if you think I'm arguing
> that there aren't atheists that are just as bad. But look at checkers,
> and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell me the world wouldn't
> be better off if they weren't on it anymore. Either you take the
> proposition that wanting the world to be a better place is okay, or it
> is immoral and bad, which seems like the position you're taking. I'm
> going to keep making these arguments as long as those like you keep
> getting inspired to say stupid shit in response, and feed theist
> hypocrisy by justifying their blatantly hypocritical double-standards.
> It isn't like you know the secret to convincing theists by sweet-
> talking them.
> On Nov 27, 7:20 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Dev..........no coherent argument you say.........oh dear
> > Look mate.....the point I was making (which I though was fairly
> > straightforward) is that one does not need to be a theist to be a
> > pathological liar, hypocrite or to be without conscience. I used 'Old
> > Man' as an example of a theist who doesn't fall into your 'all
> > encompassing definition'. Does that make sense?
> > Are all atheists my friends, because I'm one. I wouldn't think so.
> > Some are arseholes, egomaniacal, greedy, dishonest etc. And some won't
> > like me for a host of reasons. Does that mean all atheists should be
> > dealt with in exactly the same way just 'cause they are atheists? No.
> > Dev........have you ever lied, stole, abused someone, sought advantage
> > or a range of other less than virtuous deeds.
> > Are you a fuckin' saint Dev? (Irony intended)
> > It's also my opinion that calling kids a 'cunt' and persisting with
> > the notion that people should be killed 'ipso facto' because they are
> > theists (who by your definition are 'all' liars and dishonest) is
> > getting just getting a wee bit tired mate. Yes, yes, I understand the
> > premise of why your'e doing it. I'm old, but not brain dead.
> > Sure, theists are deluded and often try to justify their faith
> > rationally, which by definition, cannot be done and by you creating a
> > debating position that supposedly mimics the 'generalised' antics and
> > behaviours of the other side, is fine..........But you've done it to
> > death son.
> > Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who really are the dregs of
> > society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a fuckin' serve, but I'm
> > just raising the stakes with you a bit by saying, get off the 'killing
> > theists' shit 'cause really, it doesn't advance our side of the
> > argument much at all.........in fact it detracts..........in my ever
> > so humble opinion.
> > And Dev, please don't insult me by saying my argument lacks coherancy
> > without demonstrating why. From my perspective it does........but if
> > you think it doesn't, just tell me what doesn't stack up & I'll either
> > argue it or I'll concede!!
> > And you have a lovely day too mate and please don't take any of this
> > to heart. But if ever you call me a 'cunt', I'll be on a the next
> > Qantas 747 to visit.......really, I will :)
> > Max
> > On Nov 28, 10:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
> > > suggesting that pathological liars with no consciences make the world
> > > a better place, or that making the world a better place is a bad
> > > thing?
> > > On Nov 27, 4:14 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
> > > > that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
> > > > Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
> > > > but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
> > > > lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
> > > > theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
> > > > But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
> > > > and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
> > > > your position to one of childish expletive.
> > > > Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
> > > > fuckin' point?
> > > > And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
> > > > like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
> > > > get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
> > > > corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
> > > > & one other groups and sub groups.
> > > > Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
> > > > beyond reproach.
> > > > Cheers big ears
> > > > Max
> > > > On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> > > > > conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> > > > > right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> > > > > to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> > > > > irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> > > > > the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> > > > > the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> > > > > obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> > > > > feelings. My bad. :(
> > > > > On Nov 27, 1:40 pm, "tom.tro...@gmail.com" <tom.tro...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Will you people never learn? Every fucking day, "Dev is mean to us.
> > > > > > Why don't you atheists tell him to stop?"
> > > > > > Hey Dev, stop being mean to these lying assholes who don't deserve to
> > > > > > live, Okay?
> > > > > > There, how's that?
> > > > > > On Nov 27, 6:25 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > I felt I needed to write this in response to Dev’s continued claim
> > > > > > > that theists are not people and therefore it’s ok to kill them. I
> > > > > > > realize that in making a post disagreeing with Dev’s position I will
> > > > > > > be labelled a retard or a rapist of some sort but so be it.
> > > > > > > For the purpose of this post I am going to allow the premise that
> > > > > > > theists are not people but I want to make the case of why non-people
> > > > > > > are still worthy of our moral concerns.
> > > > > > > Of the planets non-people (those not capable of reason or ethics to
> > > > > > > use Devs own definition) there many who are still sentient beings.
> > > > > > > They have wants and needs, they can feel both physical and mental pain
> > > > > > > and they can feel joy, sorrow, empathy, anger and even form bonds of
> > > > > > > friendship. Such sentient beings include severely handicapped humans,
> > > > > > > many non-human primates, dogs and wolves, dolphins, pigs, cats and so
> > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > Now it is my position that the wants and needs of all sentient beings
> > > > > > > should be subject to our moral concerns. Many non-people feel pain
> > > > > > > just as intensely as people do, they feel the other emotions I listed
> > > > > > > above (and many more) just as intently as humans do and
I see you can't decide if you're serious, or if I'm serious, or the
difference between saying someone is a rotten person and makes the
world a nastier place to live and saying we should legislate, as I
said, pouring hydrochloric acid on Treebeard in a wind tunnel. This is
what's great about these threads--you guys can't nail down a
consistent position and wind up proving you really are of subhuman
intelligence. You say, "Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who
really are the dregs of society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a
fuckin' serve,". I say of course there are some atheists who are just
as bad, you ignore this, then acknowledge it, and generally just
ramble in circles and first imply you aren't being serious and then
throw a fit. I've discussed my serious opinions about theism and
violence in other threads that are usually overlooked at the
convenience of twats like you, but it doesn't mean I'm going to pass
up flaws in your argument even when you're still reacting to a thread
that was posted over a week ago (in another thread about it started by
someone else who, ironically, agrees with you that it's "getting
old"). Like this "you're a Nazi for wanting to fight back against
theists". The Nazis were theists--what about those who used violence
to fight them? Were they like Nazis because they fought Nazis? As long
as you keep acting like a retard, yeah I'm going to reply, and maybe
you won't know when I'm kidding or not because really I just like
fucking with stupid people.
On Nov 27, 8:10 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Whoops, I was wrong.............you 'are' taking all this shit
> seriously............Fuckin' wound up son of a bitch aren't you mate.
> Dev, I know your smart................but you're playing dumb with me
> on the core aspect of what I'm on about.
> Here we go.............
> If two people are hypocrites, liars, dumb, arseholes, shits, perverts,
> etc & one is an atheist & one is a theist and knowing both will
> invariably claim otherwise (remember both are pathological liars), it
> can now be safely assumed that both are not worthwhile members of our
> community so therefore, according to your assertion, we should 'kill'
> the theist, because their belief system underpins their aberrant
> behaviour........!!
> Is this right?
> But do we kill the atheist too, as their behaviour is just as bad. If
> not, why not?
> So if 'we' do kill the atheist, then our reason for doing so can't be
> based their 'non belief', but only on their behaviour, so this really
> must be the key determinant, not whether they are an atheist or not.
> 'But all theists, by definition are liars, cheats blah
> blah'....................
> So are politicians, car salemen, mortgage brokers, lawyers, blah
> blah...........do we kill them too, or do we try to 'assist them come
> to terms with more compliant behaviours.
> "But look at checkers, and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell
> me the world wouldn't be better off if they weren't on it anymore"
> Dev...........when you state the above mate...............are you
> still claiming the premise to be "in jest" or are you actually making
> the point that it would be appropriate to 'euthenase' these real
> people to ensure that our communities are all the better for it?
> If it's all just in jest..............then I'm just saying it's a
> tired old game you're playing and not a great debating position to
> hold as atheists can also fit the profile of a fuckhead etc, but if it
> isn't...........well then your'e a fuckin' loony
> "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt"
> Cheers big fella
> Max
> On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > OldMan was a shit, who even contested the common sense point that
> > religious intolerance wouldn't exist without religion. Of course
> > nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone is as bad as them.
> > Just because there are atheists, like Kippers, who are also slime who
> > the world would be better off without doesn't make theist behavior any
> > more acceptable. You are attacking a strawman if you think I'm arguing
> > that there aren't atheists that are just as bad. But look at checkers,
> > and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell me the world wouldn't
> > be better off if they weren't on it anymore. Either you take the
> > proposition that wanting the world to be a better place is okay, or it
> > is immoral and bad, which seems like the position you're taking. I'm
> > going to keep making these arguments as long as those like you keep
> > getting inspired to say stupid shit in response, and feed theist
> > hypocrisy by justifying their blatantly hypocritical double-standards.
> > It isn't like you know the secret to convincing theists by sweet-
> > talking them.
> > On Nov 27, 7:20 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > Dev..........no coherent argument you say.........oh dear
> > > Look mate.....the point I was making (which I though was fairly
> > > straightforward) is that one does not need to be a theist to be a
> > > pathological liar, hypocrite or to be without conscience. I used 'Old
> > > Man' as an example of a theist who doesn't fall into your 'all
> > > encompassing definition'. Does that make sense?
> > > Are all atheists my friends, because I'm one. I wouldn't think so.
> > > Some are arseholes, egomaniacal, greedy, dishonest etc. And some won't
> > > like me for a host of reasons. Does that mean all atheists should be
> > > dealt with in exactly the same way just 'cause they are atheists? No.
> > > Dev........have you ever lied, stole, abused someone, sought advantage
> > > or a range of other less than virtuous deeds.
> > > Are you a fuckin' saint Dev? (Irony intended)
> > > It's also my opinion that calling kids a 'cunt' and persisting with
> > > the notion that people should be killed 'ipso facto' because they are
> > > theists (who by your definition are 'all' liars and dishonest) is
> > > getting just getting a wee bit tired mate. Yes, yes, I understand the
> > > premise of why your'e doing it. I'm old, but not brain dead.
> > > Sure, theists are deluded and often try to justify their faith
> > > rationally, which by definition, cannot be done and by you creating a
> > > debating position that supposedly mimics the 'generalised' antics and
> > > behaviours of the other side, is fine..........But you've done it to
> > > death son.
> > > Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who really are the dregs of
> > > society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a fuckin' serve, but I'm
> > > just raising the stakes with you a bit by saying, get off the 'killing
> > > theists' shit 'cause really, it doesn't advance our side of the
> > > argument much at all.........in fact it detracts..........in my ever
> > > so humble opinion.
> > > And Dev, please don't insult me by saying my argument lacks coherancy
> > > without demonstrating why. From my perspective it does........but if
> > > you think it doesn't, just tell me what doesn't stack up & I'll either
> > > argue it or I'll concede!!
> > > And you have a lovely day too mate and please don't take any of this
> > > to heart. But if ever you call me a 'cunt', I'll be on a the next
> > > Qantas 747 to visit.......really, I will :)
> > > Max
> > > On Nov 28, 10:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
> > > > suggesting that pathological liars with no consciences make the world
> > > > a better place, or that making the world a better place is a bad
> > > > thing?
> > > > On Nov 27, 4:14 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > > Dev.........you're just acting like a fuckin' loon now pal. I know
> > > > > that faith and being a rational creature is a contradiction in terms.
> > > > > Even Old man agreed that his faith is without any rational foundation,
> > > > > but he honestly admitted it and he just prefers it that way. He didn't
> > > > > lie about it, or contort facts or otherwise, so does Old Man as a
> > > > > theist deserve to die? (Recognising the tongue in cheek of your posts)
> > > > > But seriously champ, saying you decided you were going to attack Ward
> > > > > and that he's a 'little cunt' or something like that, simply reduces
> > > > > your position to one of childish expletive.
> > > > > Mate, I can fuck this & fuck that all I like, but really, what's the
> > > > > fuckin' point?
> > > > > And if you think that the theists have a mortgage on human frailties
> > > > > like, hypocrisy, irrationality & dishonesty....well then you need to
> > > > > get out more sunshine. I mean, fuck me, check out the bovver boys in
> > > > > corporate America, politicians, car salesmen, realtors, and a thousand
> > > > > & one other groups and sub groups.
> > > > > Don't fall into the trap that everything you think or write is somehow
> > > > > beyond reproach.
> > > > > Cheers big ears
> > > > > Max
> > > > > On Nov 28, 5:54 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > Are you suggesting I lighten up on the scumfucks who everyone with a
> > > > > > conscience agrees should be shot to death in their homes? You're
> > > > > > right, I've been too hard on the garbage that is obviously detrimental
> > > > > > to the well-being of all people unless you consider hypocrisy,
> > > > > > irrationality and dishonesty to be virtues. And I humbly apologize to
> > > > > > the scumbags whose opinions obviously don't count since they oppose
> > > > > > the killing of liars so are therefore pro-lying and therefore
> > > > > > obviously not credible sources on whether or not they even have human
> > > > > > feelings. My bad. :(
Try a paragraph or two, rather than the orgasmic mess this is eh! It
just makes for clarity of thought, which is sadly lacking from you Dev
me boy :)
Clearly I must defer to such an outstanding mind such as yours Dev.
But, it really does appear that you are an overly sensitive little
thing aren't you, just because someone has another opinion.
OK then, first things first.............I'm obviously not on your
Christmas card list anymore, 'cause I had the temerity to have an
alternative opinion.......bugger! Life goes on.......!!
Oh well, let's see what we've got here shall we..................
I apparently have "subhuman intelligence" and have been pigeon holed
as "twats like you" and I'm also "acting like a retard" but in the
final analysis, "maybe you won't know when I'm kidding or not because
really I just like fucking with stupid people".
Oh deary me Dev............we were such good mates
once..............but now...........it's all shit, or so it seems.
I could kick back with a bunch of expletives, but seeing you won't
discuss my argument with any great maturity, can I ask (if anyone is
reading this) any atheists out there, if my earlier premise is
fundamentally wrong. Look, if others who can take a measured and calm
approach to this discussion can give me some of their insights (pro or
con) that'd be fine. And I can take criticism fair and square. I mean,
it's just a fuckin' Google Group, for shit's sake.
Dev, you really do need to get away from this shit occassionally
mate........the only people who I have incurred the wrath of in this
forum have been the ranting raving loonies, all theists. I cannot
remember getting a serve from any atheist other than Cathy B, after I
had a hissy fit on something I don't quite remember. But it was my
fault.
And mate, what conceit you have to consider that you're the only one
who thinks he's playing with other peoples heads.........!!
Like shootin' fish in a barrel.
Luv ya
Max
On Nov 28, 1:25 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I see you can't decide if you're serious, or if I'm serious, or the
> difference between saying someone is a rotten person and makes the
> world a nastier place to live and saying we should legislate, as I
> said, pouring hydrochloric acid on Treebeard in a wind tunnel. This is
> what's great about these threads--you guys can't nail down a
> consistent position and wind up proving you really are of subhuman
> intelligence. You say, "Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who
> really are the dregs of society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a
> fuckin' serve,". I say of course there are some atheists who are just
> as bad, you ignore this, then acknowledge it, and generally just
> ramble in circles and first imply you aren't being serious and then
> throw a fit. I've discussed my serious opinions about theism and
> violence in other threads that are usually overlooked at the
> convenience of twats like you, but it doesn't mean I'm going to pass
> up flaws in your argument even when you're still reacting to a thread
> that was posted over a week ago (in another thread about it started by
> someone else who, ironically, agrees with you that it's "getting
> old"). Like this "you're a Nazi for wanting to fight back against
> theists". The Nazis were theists--what about those who used violence
> to fight them? Were they like Nazis because they fought Nazis? As long
> as you keep acting like a retard, yeah I'm going to reply, and maybe
> you won't know when I'm kidding or not because really I just like
> fucking with stupid people.
> On Nov 27, 8:10 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Whoops, I was wrong.............you 'are' taking all this shit
> > seriously............Fuckin' wound up son of a bitch aren't you mate.
> > Dev, I know your smart................but you're playing dumb with me
> > on the core aspect of what I'm on about.
> > Here we go.............
> > If two people are hypocrites, liars, dumb, arseholes, shits, perverts,
> > etc & one is an atheist & one is a theist and knowing both will
> > invariably claim otherwise (remember both are pathological liars), it
> > can now be safely assumed that both are not worthwhile members of our
> > community so therefore, according to your assertion, we should 'kill'
> > the theist, because their belief system underpins their aberrant
> > behaviour........!!
> > Is this right?
> > But do we kill the atheist too, as their behaviour is just as bad. If
> > not, why not?
> > So if 'we' do kill the atheist, then our reason for doing so can't be
> > based their 'non belief', but only on their behaviour, so this really
> > must be the key determinant, not whether they are an atheist or not.
> > 'But all theists, by definition are liars, cheats blah
> > blah'....................
> > So are politicians, car salemen, mortgage brokers, lawyers, blah
> > blah...........do we kill them too, or do we try to 'assist them come
> > to terms with more compliant behaviours.
> > "But look at checkers, and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell
> > me the world wouldn't be better off if they weren't on it anymore"
> > Dev...........when you state the above mate...............are you
> > still claiming the premise to be "in jest" or are you actually making
> > the point that it would be appropriate to 'euthenase' these real
> > people to ensure that our communities are all the better for it?
> > If it's all just in jest..............then I'm just saying it's a
> > tired old game you're playing and not a great debating position to
> > hold as atheists can also fit the profile of a fuckhead etc, but if it
> > isn't...........well then your'e a fuckin' loony
> > "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles in der Welt"
> > Cheers big fella
> > Max
> > On Nov 28, 12:39 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > OldMan was a shit, who even contested the common sense point that
> > > religious intolerance wouldn't exist without religion. Of course
> > > nobody's perfect, but that doesn't mean everyone is as bad as them.
> > > Just because there are atheists, like Kippers, who are also slime who
> > > the world would be better off without doesn't make theist behavior any
> > > more acceptable. You are attacking a strawman if you think I'm arguing
> > > that there aren't atheists that are just as bad. But look at checkers,
> > > and Allan, and Chris, and Liam and really tell me the world wouldn't
> > > be better off if they weren't on it anymore. Either you take the
> > > proposition that wanting the world to be a better place is okay, or it
> > > is immoral and bad, which seems like the position you're taking. I'm
> > > going to keep making these arguments as long as those like you keep
> > > getting inspired to say stupid shit in response, and feed theist
> > > hypocrisy by justifying their blatantly hypocritical double-standards.
> > > It isn't like you know the secret to convincing theists by sweet-
> > > talking them.
> > > On Nov 27, 7:20 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > Dev..........no coherent argument you say.........oh dear
> > > > Look mate.....the point I was making (which I though was fairly
> > > > straightforward) is that one does not need to be a theist to be a
> > > > pathological liar, hypocrite or to be without conscience. I used 'Old
> > > > Man' as an example of a theist who doesn't fall into your 'all
> > > > encompassing definition'. Does that make sense?
> > > > Are all atheists my friends, because I'm one. I wouldn't think so.
> > > > Some are arseholes, egomaniacal, greedy, dishonest etc. And some won't
> > > > like me for a host of reasons. Does that mean all atheists should be
> > > > dealt with in exactly the same way just 'cause they are atheists? No.
> > > > Dev........have you ever lied, stole, abused someone, sought advantage
> > > > or a range of other less than virtuous deeds.
> > > > Are you a fuckin' saint Dev? (Irony intended)
> > > > It's also my opinion that calling kids a 'cunt' and persisting with
> > > > the notion that people should be killed 'ipso facto' because they are
> > > > theists (who by your definition are 'all' liars and dishonest) is
> > > > getting just getting a wee bit tired mate. Yes, yes, I understand the
> > > > premise of why your'e doing it. I'm old, but not brain dead.
> > > > Sure, theists are deluded and often try to justify their faith
> > > > rationally, which by definition, cannot be done and by you creating a
> > > > debating position that supposedly mimics the 'generalised' antics and
> > > > behaviours of the other side, is fine..........But you've done it to
> > > > death son.
> > > > Look, I agree that there are 'theists' who really are the dregs of
> > > > society & I'd be the first one to give 'em a fuckin' serve, but I'm
> > > > just raising the stakes with you a bit by saying, get off the 'killing
> > > > theists' shit 'cause really, it doesn't advance our side of the
> > > > argument much at all.........in fact it detracts..........in my ever
> > > > so humble opinion.
> > > > And Dev, please don't insult me by saying my argument lacks coherancy
> > > > without demonstrating why. From my perspective it does........but if
> > > > you think it doesn't, just tell me what doesn't stack up & I'll either
> > > > argue it or I'll concede!!
> > > > And you have a lovely day too mate and please don't take any of this
> > > > to heart. But if ever you call me a 'cunt', I'll be on a the next
> > > > Qantas 747 to visit.......really, I will :)
> > > > Max
> > > > On Nov 28, 10:09 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > I'm afraid I don't see a coherent argument anywhere in this. Are you
|
