Musings on taking offense
Ultraviolet
and decided to start a new thread rather than poke around looking for
a good spot to reply.
It seems pretty silly for a bunch of white peeps to argue over whether
it's okay to say "n*gger" without any input from blacks.
Nevertheless...
There's no reason for a white person to use the word except to shock
or be an asshole. (Exceptions noted when discussing the word itself or
literary works containing it, obvii.) I suppose there might be a
limited circumstance in an essay or speech where the word could be
used to make a point about how some people have been mistreated. I've
read that from Zen, and while he can pull it off without sounding
racist, the average white person just sounds like a jerk when using
the word.
It's been my impression (from the media -- I haven't had direct
experience discussing this with black people) that blacks as a whole
feel insulted when whites say "n*gger," so I don't. It feels wrong to
me because of that and also because it's not a word my parents ever
used. I don't see how that makes me a sheep any more than the large
group of white people who bleat "it's okay cuz they use it
themselves."
(Note that there's some asswipe using "yid" in one of the Jervis
threads with the same idiotic defense.)
If a large group of people say X, another large group say not-X, and
those are the only two possibilities, it's pretty silly to say one
group are sheep.
I have had direct experience (in the blog world) of gays feeling
insulted when straights use "that's so gay" as a perjorative. It feels
like such a juvenile and stupid expression anyway that I have no
problem not using it, except as a joke under very limited
circumstances.
How about me -- as a woman do I feel offended when people use "pussy"
or "cunt" as an insult? Definitely not. Never have. Maybe it's because
I've never felt oppressed or denied housing, jobs, education, etc. due
to being female. Just a wild guess. (Some women have experienced these
things, of course, and they may feel differently from me.)
I'm also wildly guessing that $Zero and other Italian-Americans don't
care much about "dago," etc. because they also have not experienced
the level of discrimination that blacks and gays have. From what I
read though, Italians do not want to see themselves constantly
portrayed as criminals, and I can understand that.
I used to use the word "retard" and various "tard" constructions. Sal
and others pointed out that there are a lot of parents online with
handicapped children, and it's hurtful to them to read that word. At
first I was all pffft. But I thought more about it and decided to
stop. There are plenty of other ways to insult someone's intelligence,
and after I was told about the parents it almost seemed bratty and
spiteful to keep using "tard" -- which is basically how I feel about
whites and straights insisting that it's fine to call people "n*ggers"
and "fagg*ts. Grow up already.
I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it. But it
doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
Hmm, mystery.
Is it being "PC" to have manners? Some would say it is. I like to use
swear words (a lot!), but there are plenty of times I don't. If I'm
with people whom I know dislike those words, and I have even a modicum
of respect for these people (or if they happen to sign my paycheck), I
refrain. It's not the least bit diffcult, and it goes with having
manners, IMO. There are cultures where burping at the table is a cool
thing to do, but it isn't cool here, so most of us try not to do it.
OMG, sheep! It's much more exciting to be a rebel, yes? Aaaah, I
burped *and* said "n*gger" *and* didn't hold the door for some cunt
today cuz I'm just such a free thinker. Yeah, right.
On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
(I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
me to discuss the topic at all.
Carry on.
--
UV
serenebabe
<...>
> It's been my impression (from the media -- I haven't had direct
> experience discussing this with black people) that blacks as a whole
> feel insulted when whites say "n*gger," so I don't. It feels wrong to
> me because of that and also because it's not a word my parents ever
> used. I don't see how that makes me a sheep any more than the large
> group of white people who bleat "it's okay cuz they use it
> themselves."
The hilarious Paul Mooney stopped saying it and explains why here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqQKWSwlYHo&feature=related or
http://tinyurl.com/9ymeec
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
serenebabe
> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
> no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
> believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
> (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
> most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> me to discuss the topic at all.
Someone responded to my recent blog post about holding vastly different
views in your heart/head at the same time is a sign of maturity. Not
sure about that, but, I don't see how we can ever talk about
controversial issues if we're always afraid we're going to offend
people.
Why lie, though?
PJ
Thank you!
> That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> me to discuss the topic at all.
Beautifully explained poast, UV. And I'm glad you put your thoughts in a
new thread.
I do believe that being PC is a sign of good manners (as long as it's
sincere and not a thinly veiled cover-up for bigotry), but what drives
me nuts is peeps who take it to the point of being ridiculous. Forex,
I've had people tell me that I shouldn't use the word "Mexican," that
the proper words are Hispanics or Latinos. That's nuts, I've answered.
If the person is from Mexico, the person is a Mexican, in the same way
that I'm from America and am an American, or someone from Canada is a
Canadian. Indian is another example. Apparently it's not PC to call
someone an Indian, the proper term is Native American. Yet many "Native
Americans" freely call themselves Indians. I went to a seminar and the
speaker, who I believe was Ojibwa, constantly talked about Indians --
not one mention of Native American anywhere in her talk. Throughout
Michigan there are many casinos and the Indians who run them call
themselves Indians, like the Little River Casino in Manistee, which is
run by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and that's what they
call themselves on their Web site.
Then there's African Americans, which I've heard people say is the
correct term rather than "black." Yet I know many black people who don't
like the term "African American," don't consider themselves "African" at
all, and don't want to be called that.
Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
~ ~ ~
PJ
$Zero
with respect to manners, there is no going overboard.
that's part of the inherent problem with "manners" and political
correctness.
what seems silly to you is totally irrelevant.
until you learn that, your outrage over anyone else's "lack of
manners" is hypocritical in the extreme.
-$Zero...
this is the dangerous mindset of the politically correct.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a79df3e6bb55b47b
Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com
boots
Ultraviolet <paula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been reading some of the posts on the various threads about slurs
>and decided to start a new thread rather than poke around looking for
>a good spot to reply.
There probably weren't any.
The first time I heard that one I was like, "what???" It was
explained to me that it meant "lame". I think that might be irony,
but it's been pointed out to me that I wear the wrong kind of trousers
to recognize irony, satire, etc.
>How about me -- as a woman do I feel offended when people use "pussy"
>or "cunt" as an insult? Definitely not. Never have. Maybe it's because
>I've never felt oppressed or denied housing, jobs, education, etc. due
>to being female. Just a wild guess. (Some women have experienced these
>things, of course, and they may feel differently from me.)
>
>I'm also wildly guessing that $Zero and other Italian-Americans don't
>care much about "dago," etc. because they also have not experienced
>the level of discrimination that blacks and gays have. From what I
>read though, Italians do not want to see themselves constantly
>portrayed as criminals, and I can understand that.
If $Zero had lived in times past when Italian immigrants were treated
poorly he might have a different view.
>I used to use the word "retard" and various "tard" constructions. Sal
>and others pointed out that there are a lot of parents online with
>handicapped children, and it's hurtful to them to read that word. At
>first I was all pffft. But I thought more about it and decided to
>stop. There are plenty of other ways to insult someone's intelligence,
>and after I was told about the parents it almost seemed bratty and
>spiteful to keep using "tard" -- which is basically how I feel about
>whites and straights insisting that it's fine to call people "n*ggers"
>and "fagg*ts. Grow up already.
>
>I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
>realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
>explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it. But it
>doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
>wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
>the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
>Hmm, mystery.
Why do people use ridicule in its various forms? Hmm, mystery. To me
anyway. Wrong pants.
>Is it being "PC" to have manners? Some would say it is. I like to use
>swear words (a lot!), but there are plenty of times I don't. If I'm
>with people whom I know dislike those words, and I have even a modicum
>of respect for these people (or if they happen to sign my paycheck), I
>refrain. It's not the least bit diffcult, and it goes with having
>manners, IMO. There are cultures where burping at the table is a cool
>thing to do, but it isn't cool here, so most of us try not to do it.
>OMG, sheep! It's much more exciting to be a rebel, yes? Aaaah, I
>burped *and* said "n*gger" *and* didn't hold the door for some cunt
>today cuz I'm just such a free thinker. Yeah, right.
Regardless of the impression some people may have formed, I for one
don't have a serious problem conforming to the expectations of others
as long as they don't try using that to make me their nigger.
Yes, I just used That Word. Shocking isn't it. But if you think
about it, the way I used it the meaning was "slave" and the word I
used conveys the repugnance I feel for any form of slavery. I
could've used the word 'coolie' but their plight was shorter-lived and
less well known.
Let me know where to report at dawn to line up against the wall.
>On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
>discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
>both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
>I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
>no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
>believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
>(I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
>most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
>searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
>me to discuss the topic at all.
I have no idea what peoples' imaginations have done with my many
comments on the subject of religion, some probably think me an
anti-theist, others a wackjob, it doesn't matter. I found Hope's post
offensive because of his agressive anti-theism, and made a wisecrack
in response. It was probably a weak response, but I'm weary.
PJ's post bothered me but I kept my piehole shut on that one. It
bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
interchangeably. I understand that many people who think of
themselves as Christian feel the terms are interchangeable. But to
anyone who does not accept Jesus as Christ is going to have a problem
with that interchangeability whether they say anything or not.
>Carry on.
Hey, that's what we do here.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
PJ
Sure there is. Think obsequious. Think Eddie Haskell.
> that's part of the inherent problem with "manners" and political correctness.
Sez you. I don't happen to agree.
> what seems silly to you is totally irrelevant.
It's relevant to me. See how that works?
>
> until you learn that, your outrage over anyone else's "lack of
> manners" is hypocritical in the extreme.
Where do you see me expressing *outrage*? I think you're just trying to
pick a fight.
~ ~ ~
PJ
PJ
< ... >
>
> PJ's post bothered me but I kept my piehole shut on that one.
Apparently you've changed your mind. <g>
> It bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
> interchangeably. I understand that many people who think of
> themselves as Christian feel the terms are interchangeable.
To me, they are one and the same.
> But to anyone who does not accept Jesus as Christ is going to have a problem
> with that interchangeability whether they say anything or not.
Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with that? I'm talking about my
views, not pushing them onto anyone else.
~ ~ ~
PJ
$Zero
> Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >I'm also wildly guessing that $Zero and other Italian-Americans don't
> >care much about "dago," etc. because they also have not experienced
> >the level of discrimination that blacks and gays have. From what I
> >read though, Italians do not want to see themselves constantly
> >portrayed as criminals, and I can understand that.
>
> If $Zero had lived in times past when Italian immigrants were treated
> poorly he might have a different view.
all of my grandparents lived in such times, and i knew all of them for
many many years and not once did any of them ever instruct me to be
offended by any of the wop dago slurs.
and the people who are offended by the portrayal of Italians in
popular culture would suppress some of the greatest examples of art
ever produced on film so i cannot take any of them seriously.
their self-esteem issues are what need fixing, not free speech.
if someone wants more "positive" portrayals of this or that group,
then start creating them.
it's the same logic that applies to Usenet postings.
-$Zero...
with respect to manners, there is no going overboard.
what seems silly to you is totally irrelevant.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/70a555cb1eeefb06
boots
> Forex,
>I've had people tell me that I shouldn't use the word "Mexican," that
>the proper words are Hispanics or Latinos.
My son-in-law is a Mexican. I wonder if he's a Hispanic or a Latino.
I'll try to remember to ask him.
Forest Gump's mamma was one real smart lady, "Stupid is as stupid
does."
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 11:05 am, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> >> I do believe that being PC is a sign of good manners (as long as it's
> >> sincere and not a thinly veiled cover-up for bigotry), but what drives
> >> me nuts is peeps who take it to the point of being ridiculous. Forex,
> >> I've had people tell me that I shouldn't use the word "Mexican," that
> >> the proper words are Hispanics or Latinos. That's nuts, I've answered.
> >> If the person is from Mexico, the person is a Mexican, in the same way
> >> that I'm from America and am an American, or someone from Canada is a
> >> Canadian. Indian is another example. Apparently it's not PC to call
> >> someone an Indian, the proper term is Native American. Yet many "Native
> >> Americans" freely call themselves Indians. I went to a seminar and the
> >> speaker, who I believe was Ojibwa, constantly talked about Indians --
> >> not one mention of Native American anywhere in her talk. Throughout
> >> Michigan there are many casinos and the Indians who run them call
> >> themselves Indians, like the Little River Casino in Manistee, which is
> >> run by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and that's what they
> >> call themselves on their Web site.
>
> >> Then there's African Americans, which I've heard people say is the
> >> correct term rather than "black." Yet I know many black people who don't
> >> like the term "African American," don't consider themselves "African" at
> >> all, and don't want to be called that.
>
> >> Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
>
> > with respect to manners, there is no going overboard.
>
> Sure there is. Think obsequious. Think Eddie Haskell.
LOL
> > that's part of the inherent problem with "manners" and political correctness.
>
> Sez you. I don't happen to agree.
then don't you think it would be right of you to stop using the term
Mexican, Mrs. Cleaver?
and Indian.
and Afro-American.
and black.
and Liberal.
etc..
> > what seems silly to you is totally irrelevant.
>
> It's relevant to me. See how that works?
indeed.
"but what drives me nuts is peeps who
take it to the point of being ridiculous.
Forex, I've had people tell me that I
shouldn't use the word "Mexican," that
the proper words are Hispanics or Latinos.
That's nuts, I've answered."
and voila:
you've never used that phrase about anything before?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a79df3e6bb55b47b
"That's nuts, I've answered."
see how that works?
"that's part of the inherent problem with
'manners' and political correctness."
> > until you learn that, your outrage over anyone else's
> > "lack of manners" is hypocritical in the extreme.
>
> Where do you see me expressing *outrage*?
i meant "you" in the general sense.
> I think you're just trying to pick a fight.
it's my dumb dago nature.
-$Zero...
can you possibly map out for me a future circumstance
that would make it a reasonable time to consider
making the word "Liberal" unacceptable to use?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/d61c60f98f51fb13
boots
>boots wrote:
>< ... >
>>
>> PJ's post bothered me but I kept my piehole shut on that one.
>
>Apparently you've changed your mind. <g>
No, it just seemed inappropriate there, in direct reply to your
expression of... hurt? outrage? But here where your post is being
discussed less emotionally it didn't seem inappropriate. If I was
wrong, oops, sorry.
> > It bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
>> interchangeably. I understand that many people who think of
>> themselves as Christian feel the terms are interchangeable.
>
>To me, they are one and the same.
I understand that. To me they are vastly different. Ask Sylvia how
she feels about it if you want to get beat up on. <g>
>> But to anyone who does not accept Jesus as Christ is going to have a problem
>> with that interchangeability whether they say anything or not.
>
>Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with that? I'm talking about my
>views, not pushing them onto anyone else.
You're not talking about your views, not really, PJ. You're not
saying "I believe Jesus is Christ", instead you're assuming it and
you're assuming that everybody else knows it for a fact. In a way
it's like saying "Since niggers are scum everybody knows the earth is
round". You're stating as an assumption something others may not
believe.
Personally I do not think Jesus was the Christ of Judaic tradition for
a number of reasons, and I'm not aware of any other Christ. When you
assume it as part of your sentence I'm forced to call you on the
assumption along with anything else in the sentence that I might
disagree with, or let the whole thing slide. On the flipside I can't
agree with whatever else you've said without calling you on the
assumption. I may be a social spastic but I try not to mistreat
people.
boots
>On Jan 19, 11:31 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>> If $Zero had lived in times past when Italian immigrants were treated
>> poorly he might have a different view.
>
>all of my grandparents lived in such times, and i knew all of them for
>many many years and not once did any of them ever instruct me to be
>offended by any of the wop dago slurs.
You're very fortunate to have had grandparents who made it through
those times without suffering, or even more fortunate if they suffered
and did not pass it along to you. I hope you're thankful for that
because it's a rare thing.
Mark
on the topic of objectifying minorities. You can
quickly surmise the obvious. These groups are what
they are because of their ethnicity and national
origin. Show a little class, not your ass.
To try and group Christianity into the same set
of parameters for sensitivity considerations is outside
of the subject group. While Christianity may be a
minority, it is a belief system and not a skin color.
Religion beliefs encompass a purpose for living.
They are intrinsically woven into the psychology
of a believers mental health.
You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
to love and defend.
See how that works?
---
Mark
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 11:31 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
> >> If $Zero had lived in times past when Italian immigrants were treated
> >> poorly he might have a different view.
>
> >all of my grandparents lived in such times, and i knew all of them for
> >many many years and not once did any of them ever instruct me to be
> >offended by any of the wop dago slurs.
>
> You're very fortunate to have had grandparents who made it through
> those times without suffering, or even more fortunate if they suffered
> and did not pass it along to you.
i'm pretty sure that both of my grandfathers were born in Italy, one
of them definitely was.
and i'm pretty sure they suffered from ethnic discrimination in some
form or another, but i was never informed of any of it.
of course, the Italian American experience goes nowhere near the
suffering of being brought over as slaves, though there were dago
lynchings and such.
but any gay person has probably suffered more from cultural
discrimination than any of my relatives and fellow Italians ever did.
however, regardless of how much various people have suffered
throughout history for a multitude of various suffering reasons, i
still don't think that it's wise or smart to ban words or to teach
people to be offended by banned words.
it's much wiser and more practical and more positively productive to
teach people to NOT to be offended by labels.
> I hope you're thankful for that because it's a rare thing.
is it?
but yes i'm definitely thankful for not being taught to be offended by
slur words directed at my ethnicity, though i was taught that using
the words nigger and fuck was wrong.
as far as being thankful for my grandparents never sharing their
suffering, that doesn't apply, they whined quite a bit just like
everyone else, it's just that they never shared their suffering in
regards to being called wops and whatnot.
sticks and stones, and all that.
-$Zero...
it's my dumb dago nature.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e0d8dfa0bb94a402
Mark
> but any gay person has probably suffered more from cultural
> discrimination than any of my relatives and fellow Italians ever did.
> -$Zero...
Homosexuals do not suffer from cultural discrimination.
They suffer from sexual discrimination.
---
Mark
Sylvia
<...>
> I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
> realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it. But it
> doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
> wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
> the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
> Hmm, mystery.
"Oriental" refers to lands in the East and the peeps of those lands. Many
Asian peeps don't care to have themselves labeled according to a European
peep's point of view. And, it smacks of empires, colonizations and so forth.
<...>
> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> I think it's all fairy tales.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
> But anything less would be a lie. I have no problem lying, so many times I
> do that or just keep quiet. Most believers also end up being insulting,
> even if they don't "mean" to (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!),
Well, like in some other religions, it is a Christian's duty to work at
convertin' Heathen to the One True Faith. This includes convertin' Christians
in other sects 'cause their True Faith ain't as True as theirs.
"Evangelism is a central mission of the Church, the pope told
a Vatican body that encourages Catholic missionary activity."
"The appeal for the conversion of 'all nations,' attributed to
Jesus Christ in the Gospels, remains 'an obligatory mandate for
the entire Church and for every believer in Christ,' the pontiff said."
"'This apostolic commitment is both a duty and an inalienable
right, the very expression of religious freedom with its moral,
social and political dimensions,' he said."
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Pope_speaks_of_duty_to_convert_othe_05172008.html
"This apostolic commitment is [...] the very expression of religious freedom".
Ya gotta love it. Don't get him started on Protestants.
> with some exceptions, most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse
> though, so I'm still searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering
> importance for me to discuss the topic at all.
<...>
Prove that the God Dionysos is *not* a historical figure, Miz UV. If you
don't, I'll chant "POC! POC! POC!" at ya.
--
Sylvia (I will.)
boots
You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to do
with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? Or was it just a handy
place to flap your yap?
Were you the guy posting as WildePad a while back?
Are you just a troll, or whut?
boots
Jackson Pillock
(...)
>
> I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
> realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it.
'Oriental' describes an occidental viewpoint, with Asians a presumed
cultural and geographical other.
(...)
>
> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
> no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
> believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
> (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
> most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> me to discuss the topic at all.
If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
faith, but I can't.'
Really I don't wish it at all.
>
> Carry on.
>
> --
> UV
Jackson Pillock
> Miz Ultraviolet wrote:
>
> "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in
> one fewer god than you do. When you understand why
> you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
> why I dismiss yours."
>
> -- Stephen Roberts
I love that one.
Mark
>
> You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to do
> with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? Or was it just a handy
> place to flap your yap?
It was an overall summation of the entire outlook.
I wouldn't change a word of it. It is concise and
to the point.
> Were you the guy posting as WildePad a while back?
No sir. I have a new computer and have never been to
this group until a couple of weeks ago.
> Are you just a troll, or whut?
I stand behind my words, and hope they enlighten,
either you, or you me.
---
Mark
Mark
> Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 19, 12:56 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> but any gay person has probably suffered more from cultural
> >> discrimination than any of my relatives and fellow Italians ever did.
>
> >> -$Zero...
>
> >Homosexuals do not suffer from cultural discrimination.
> >They suffer from sexual discrimination.
>
> >---
> >Mark
>
> Boots is a weenie!
Huh? I can't figure you out today.
Other than a *little* humor on my part,
I've made direct and concise statements
supporting a specific view.
No matter. Lets just stick to the facts,
and supported assertions. Any guy with
a wood stove can't be that bad.
---
Mark
PJ
> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> boots wrote:
>> < ... >
>>> PJ's post bothered me but I kept my piehole shut on that one.
>> Apparently you've changed your mind. <g>
>
> No, it just seemed inappropriate there, in direct reply to your expression of... hurt? outrage?
A little hurt, but certainly not outraged. It takes a hellova lot to get
me outraged. People blowing up entire mountains, causing families to
lose their homes and livelihoods and the only way of life they've ever
known, in order to excavate coal, now THAT gets me outraged.
> But here where your post is being discussed less emotionally it
didn't seem inappropriate. If I was wrong, oops, sorry.
Nope, you were being sensitive, and that was nice.
>
>>> It bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
>>> interchangeably. I understand that many people who think of
>>> themselves as Christian feel the terms are interchangeable.
>> To me, they are one and the same.
>
> I understand that. To me they are vastly different. Ask Sylvia how she feels about it if you want to get beat up on. <g>
No. Sylvia wouldn't beat me up because I use the terms interchangeably
in conversation. I know she wouldn't.
>>> But to anyone who does not accept Jesus as Christ is going to have a problem with that interchangeability whether they say anything or not.
>> Why on Earth would anyone have a problem with that? I'm talking about my views, not pushing them onto anyone else.
>
> You're not talking about your views, not really, PJ. You're not
> saying "I believe Jesus is Christ", instead you're assuming it
Which I have the right to do.
> and you're assuming that everybody else knows it for a fact.
It doesn't matter whether everybody knows it for a fact, or whether one
person knows it for a fact, boots. I'm talking about my beliefs, and I
will express myself according to those beliefs. If other people discuss
aspects of their religions and in the process make statements I may not
agree with, why would that bother me? It's how they view things.
> In a way it's like saying "Since niggers are scum everybody knows the earth is round". You're stating as an assumption something others may not
> believe.
I do believe that is the most ludicrous stretch I've ever heard! You're
comparing a horrid racist slur to my statements about my relationship
with Christ? Good grief, boots.
> Personally I do not think Jesus was the Christ of Judaic tradition for
> a number of reasons, and I'm not aware of any other Christ.
Okay.
> When you assume it as part of your sentence I'm forced to call you on the
> assumption along with anything else in the sentence that I might
> disagree with, or let the whole thing slide. On the flipside I can't
> agree with whatever else you've said without calling you on the
> assumption. I may be a social spastic but I try not to mistreat
> people.
Wotever, boots.
~ ~ ~
PJ
boots
Then maybe you should try not to be quite that nice, politeness that
has pushed into outright falsehood might not serve anyone.
'Faith' is a funny word. On one hand it can mean that you have a
level of confidence in your experience or knowledge. On the other
hand it can mean you wish you had a level of confidence in what you
would like to be true.
I have faith that I have somehow misrepresented that and that some
kindly soul will be along presently to correct me, but I don't quite
see how 'faith' can have nearly opposite meanings. Are there other
words that have two meanings that are opposites?
PJ
> Mark <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Its one thing to make commentaries and analysis
>> on the topic of objectifying minorities. You can
>> quickly surmise the obvious. These groups are what
>> they are because of their ethnicity and national
>> origin. Show a little class, not your ass.
>>
>> To try and group Christianity into the same set
>> of parameters for sensitivity considerations is outside
>> of the subject group. While Christianity may be a
>> minority, it is a belief system and not a skin color.
>>
>> Religion beliefs encompass a purpose for living.
>> They are intrinsically woven into the psychology
>> of a believers mental health.
>>
>> You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
>> that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
>> When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
>> me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
>> to love and defend.
>>
>> See how that works?
> You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to do
> with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? Or was it just a handy
> place to flap your yap?
<...>
It wasn't verbose at all. Nor was it crap.
~ ~ ~
PJ
gekko
<paula...@gmail.com> posted to misc.writing:
<snippage. Read the whole thing, but really only have something to
say regarding this>
> Is it being "PC" to have manners? Some would say it is.
PC, in my book, is a societal knee-jerk quasi-law word ban (or words
that seem similar to that word), coupled with strong, negative social
consequences whenEVER the banned word is uttered. Over-the-top, and
without solid reason. Becoming hyper-sensitive to the point that
communication becomes hindered.
It is PC when you gasp and call someone racist when they say
"niggardly."
Similarly, if someone is engaged in a discussion on the effect and
ramifications of using the word "nigger" and is admonished that they
ought to say "n-word" instead of "nigger", that is PC.
It is PC when you go out of your way, contort yourself mentally and
emotionally, to avoid the possibility of offense to someone. I'm not
talking about normal manners or treating someone with respect, here.
I am talking about taking a word or phrase that is _not_ inherently
offensive, but making it taboo because someone decided they don't
like it. Some blacks have said they don't like the word "black."
Some _want_ you to use "black," and dislike the term "African
American." When you find you cannot speak because you're afraid of
causing offense no matter what you say, you have toppled over into
PC-land.
Doesn't hurt, by the way, to actually ask people what they prefer,
and then make a point of accomodating them. I don't think that's PC.
> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say
> that I both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same
> time say that I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less
> would be a lie. I have no problem lying, so many times I do that
> or just keep quiet. Most believers also end up being insulting,
> even if they don't "mean" to (I'm just looking out for your
> eternal soul!), with some exceptions, most notably PJ. That's not
> a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still searching for a way,
> not that it's of earth-shattering importance for me to discuss the
> topic at all.
I've played the outrage game on the froup for a variety of reasons,
but I have to say that I do get what you're saying, here. I even
agree with it.
Ideally, a person should be secure in whatever it is they believe. If
someone doesn't believe the way you do, and says you are delusional,
but you know better, then wouldn't it be they who are delusional?
--
gekko
Meeting, n.: An assembly of people coming together to decide what
person or department not represented in the room must solve a
problem.
gekko
<autho...@gmail.com> posted to misc.writing:
> Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
ITA
boots
I agree with the "wotever" part. I probably should've continued to
keep my mouth shut. I mean, it's not easy to get on your A-list.
Well, maybe not too easy. Hell, I don't know, is it easy or hard?
Antichrist's sake, I get so confused.
boots
Neither was anything I've ever written.
Now I'll fall back on Hope's defense. Prove it.
boots
>Ideally, a person should be secure in whatever it is they believe. If
>someone doesn't believe the way you do, and says you are delusional,
>but you know better, then wouldn't it be they who are delusional?
Sanity involves buying into the worldview generally accepted as sane.
Anyone with a different worldview is viewed as insane.
It's a club, no more, unless terms like 'delusional' and 'sane' are
replaced by terms like 'functional' and 'nonfunctional'.
Between the busywork activities of burning bushes and flooding the
world, does God ever ask himself if there's a God?
Stan (the Man)
<...>
> It doesn't matter whether everybody knows it for a fact, or whether one
> person knows it for a fact, boots. I'm talking about my beliefs, and I
> will express myself according to those beliefs. If other people discuss
> aspects of their religions and in the process make statements I may not
> agree with, why would that bother me? It's how they view things.
I just heard Charles Grodin say as part of a radio essay, "The strength with
which an opinion is expressed has nothing to do with the wisdom of that
opinion."
Someone else, whose name escapes me, said (paraphrased from memory), small is
the mind that cannot conceive of anything beyond that which can be proven.
I agree with both of those statements.
--
Stan
Mark
> boots wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you. Course, I knew it that, cause I'm secure.
You'll know what I mean PJ when I say that some things
which are obvious to us, are hidden from others.
---
Mark
PJ
> It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when PJ
> <autho...@gmail.com> posted to misc.writing:
>
>
>> Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
>
> ITA
Thanks God YOU get what I was saying.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Mark
> gekko <Miz.Ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ideally, a person should be secure in whatever it is they believe. If
> >someone doesn't believe the way you do, and says you are delusional,
> >but you know better, then wouldn't it be they who are delusional?
>
> Sanity involves buying into the worldview generally accepted as sane.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over
and expecting different results.
---
Mark
"So how's that workin for ya?"- Dr.Phil
Jackson Pillock
> Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >On 19 Jan, 15:44, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >(...)
>
> >> I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
> >> realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> >> explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it.
>
> >'Oriental' describes an occidental viewpoint, with Asians a presumed
> >cultural and geographical other.
>
> >(...)
>
> >> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> >> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> >> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> >> I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
> >> no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
> >> believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
> >> (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
> >> most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
> >> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> >> me to discuss the topic at all.
>
> >If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
> >faith, but I can't.'
>
> >Really I don't wish it at all.
>
> Then maybe you should try not to be quite that nice, politeness that
> has pushed into outright falsehood might not serve anyone.
There are times when lying to be nice is better all around.
Mark
wrote:
>
> Someone else, whose name escapes me, said (paraphrased from memory), small is
> the mind that cannot conceive of anything beyond that which can be proven.
>
> I agree with both of those statements.
>
> --
> Stan
While the existence of God goes beyond reason,
it doesn't go against it.
---
Mark
PJ
>> Wotever, boots.
> I agree with the "wotever" part. I probably should've continued to keep my mouth shut.
Oh hush. No, I mean talk. You're entitled to say wotever you want to say
on this froup, FFS!
> I mean, it's not easy to get on your A-list.
This is true!
> Well, maybe not too easy. Hell, I don't know, is it easy or hard?
> Antichrist's sake, I get so confused.
You've made me smile. Pat yourself on your ornery back for that one.
~ ~ ~
PJ
PJ
And I agree as well, Loot. They don't call you "da man" for nothing.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Mark
> > Then maybe you should try not to be quite that nice, politeness that
> > has pushed into outright falsehood might not serve anyone.
>
> There are times when lying to be nice is better all around.
And, there are times when lying all around the house is nice
Mark
PJ
Obviously you get the whole, "Honey, do I look fat in these jeans?" and
responding, "You look FANTASTIC in whatever you are wearing, Luv."
~ ~ ~
PJ
gekko
<narrowed eyes> Did you think I wouldn't? Is that what this is?
Hmm?
gekko
<blueri...@yahoo.com> posted to misc.writing:
>
> Huh? I can't figure you out today.
Cranky guy. Priapic, you know.
gekko
<n...@no.no> posted to misc.writing:
> You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to
> do with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? Or was it just a
> handy place to flap your yap?
OMG! Mark is "heather" to boots's "Sylvia"!
gekko
<blueri...@yahoo.com> posted to misc.writing:
> some things
> which are obvious to us, are hidden from others.
Well, when you're talking about boots, that's not uncommon.
john.ku...@sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > It doesn't matter whether everybody knows it for a fact, or whether one
> > person knows it for a fact, boots. I'm talking about my beliefs, and I
> > will express myself according to those beliefs. If other people discuss
> > aspects of their religions and in the process make statements I may not
> > agree with, why would that bother me? It's how they view things.
>
> I just heard Charles Grodin say as part of a radio essay, "The strength with
> which an opinion is expressed has nothing to do with the wisdom of that
> opinion."
Isn't that the basis of politics?
Mark
> It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when Mark
> > Huh? I can't figure you out today.
>
> Cranky guy. Priapic, you know.
Ooohh, ok. (slowing walking backwards)
yeah, i'm gonna just skeedattyl next time.
---
Mark
Mark
> > handy place to flap your yap?
>
> OMG! Mark is "heather" to boots's "Sylvia"!
Ok, now I'm sure I don't know what that means, but
just offhand, I don't see myself as a "heather". If
anything I'm a Zena.
Wendy Chatley Green
:
:You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
:that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
:When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
:me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
:to love and defend.
How does one defend the omnipotent creator of the universe and every
thing within and without? Isn't that a bit like an ant taking a stand
in front of my big toe and offering to beat up everyone who disagrees
with me?
The fomulation I'm most familiar with is "to know, love, and serve
God." People who need to "defend" God seem to end up killing in God's
name (viz sicide bombers who go "boom" in the name of Allah.)
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@lycos.com
Jackson Pillock
And times when you have to stand up and spit the truth.
Jackson Pillock
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kinda like the whole drawing breath deal.
PJ
> It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when PJ
> <autho...@gmail.com> posted to misc.wr
>> gekko wrote:
>>> It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when PJ
>>> <autho...@gmail.com> posted to misc.writing:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
>>> ITA
>> Thanks God YOU get what I was saying.
>
> <narrowed eyes> Did you think I wouldn't? Is that what this is? Hmm?
Ummmmm .......... Ummmmmmmmmm ... what exactly is the *right* answer here??
<consulting book, "How Not To Offend Lizards">
~ ~ ~
PJ
John Ashby
"Jackson Pillock" <and...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3bbd0cf4-2ba5-4eb9...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
> faith, but I can't.'
>
> Really I don't wish it at all.
>
You could try "I can see that there could be advantages to having faith, but
I don't."
john
Mark
wrote:
> For some inexplicable reasons, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
> :that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
> :When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
> :me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
> :to love and defend.
>
> How does one defend the omnipotent creator of the universe and every
> thing within and without? Isn't that a bit like an ant taking a stand
> in front of my big toe and offering to beat up everyone who disagrees
> with me?
No not at all. A human can defend God by allowing themselves to
be used in his service in the presence of all that is hopeless, and
evil, by allowing him to soberly pass on his strenght thru them, to
let the lost see the truth that is substantiated by the existing
standards
of historicity and archeology. A human can defend God by allowing
themselves to be his hands and his voice. A human defends God
any time they allow themselves to be a living example of faith in
the belief of his supernatural power.
That is how a human defends God.
>
> The fomulation I'm most familiar with is "to know, love, and serve
> God." People who need to "defend" God seem to end up killing in God's
> name (viz sicide bombers who go "boom" in the name of Allah.)
There is no Allah. That is Satan. Islam is a counterfeit knock-off
religion of Christianity, a convoluted twist of the Old Testament,
which encompasses the maniacal meglomania of a warlord named
muhammed, who couldn't even get along with his own family.
A false prophet is revealed if that which they predict doesn't
come to pass, and the fruits of their labor bring death not life.
Now I have answered your question. I will not entertain the idea
of trying to persuade you to believe anything.
Mark
> --
> Wendy Chatley Green
> wcgr...@lycos.com
serenebabe
<...>
> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
> faith, but I can't.'
>
> Really I don't wish it at all.
Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
"being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
that?
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
Grand Mal
"Stan (the Man)" <stanI...@rvckids.us.INVALID> wrote in message
news:Xns9B9896B65D9...@199.45.49.11...
> PJ <autho...@gmail.com> wrote in news:gl2jfj$tvf$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>
>
> <...>
>
>> It doesn't matter whether everybody knows it for a fact, or whether one
>> person knows it for a fact, boots. I'm talking about my beliefs, and I
>> will express myself according to those beliefs. If other people discuss
>> aspects of their religions and in the process make statements I may not
>> agree with, why would that bother me? It's how they view things.
>
> I just heard Charles Grodin say as part of a radio essay, "The strength
> with
> which an opinion is expressed has nothing to do with the wisdom of that
> opinion."
Who said, "Just because people will die for something doesn't mean it's
true."?
Or something like that..
Sylvia
> PJ's post bothered me but I kept my piehole shut on that one. It
> bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
> interchangeably.
Yeah, right. (c)
Why would that "bother" you, boots? Are you offended on the part of a person
you personally believed existed thousands of years ago, a belief that would
have to be based on faith alone?
> I understand that many people who think of themselves as Christian feel the
> terms are interchangeable.
Jesus Christ, boots, how long did it take ya to figure that out?
> But to anyone who does not accept Jesus as Christ is going to have a
> problem with that interchangeability whether they say anything or not.
Well, no, boots, you're quite wrong. The majority of the people in the world
do not even believe in the concept of a messiah whatsoever. Why would we care
*which* benign name was used in the tales of a religion based on believing in
an ancient appearance of a messiah?
I don't believe in a Christ and I know that there is no historic "Jesus of
Nazareth", boots, so it's not only damned arrogant but senseless of you to say
that you took offense on my part and claim that *I* would have a problem with
"that interchangeability".
Thanks so much for yer concern, but there was no need for you to imply in my
behalf that Miz PJ should add a politically correct disclaimer any time she
uses the name of "Jesus" in the context of her belief in the Christianity
messiah.
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
> boots wrote:
> > PJ wrote:
> >> boots wrote:
[Speaking of Miz PJ]
<...>
> >>> It bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
> >>> interchangeably. I understand that many people who think of themselves
> >>> as Christian feel the terms are interchangeable.
.
> >> To me, they are one and the same.
> >
> > I understand that. To me they are vastly different. Ask Sylvia how she
> > feels about it if you want to get beat up on. <g>
boots, why the hell would I attack Miz PJ because *you* have a problem with
the given name of her particular religion's messiah?
> No. Sylvia wouldn't beat me up because I use the terms interchangeably in
> conversation. I know she wouldn't.
<...>
<comparing her Harpy claws to The Head Harpy's claws>
Oh, absolutely *not*. No. Uh-uh.
<holding out dish of tasty chocolate>
Have one? Have three!
--
Sylvia
Jackson Pillock
> On 2009-01-19 13:47:01 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> <...>> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
> > faith, but I can't.'
>
> > Really I don't wish it at all.
>
> <...>
>
> Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
> wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
> faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
> "being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
> that?
Well if they did that, I'd start explaining why I can't...
>
> --
> It's All About We! (the column)http://www.serenebabe.net/- new 1/14
chris....@gmail.com
> Ultraviolet wrote:
> > I've been reading some of the posts on the various threads about slurs
> > and decided to start a new thread rather than poke around looking for
> > a good spot to reply.
>
> > It seems pretty silly for a bunch of white peeps to argue over whether
> > it's okay to say "n*gger" without any input from blacks.
> > Nevertheless...
>
> > There's no reason for a white person to use the word except to shock
> > or be an asshole. (Exceptions noted when discussing the word itself or
> > literary works containing it, obvii.) I suppose there might be a
> > limited circumstance in an essay or speech where the word could be
> > used to make a point about how some people have been mistreated. I've
> > read that from Zen, and while he can pull it off without sounding
> > racist, the average white person just sounds like a jerk when using
> > the word.
>
> > It's been my impression (from the media -- I haven't had direct
> > experience discussing this with black people) that blacks as a whole
> > feel insulted when whites say "n*gger," so I don't. It feels wrong to
> > me because of that and also because it's not a word my parents ever
> > used. I don't see how that makes me a sheep any more than the large
> > group of white people who bleat "it's okay cuz they use it
> > themselves."
>
> > (Note that there's some asswipe using "yid" in one of the Jervis
> > threads with the same idiotic defense.)
>
> > If a large group of people say X, another large group say not-X, and
> > those are the only two possibilities, it's pretty silly to say one
> > group are sheep.
>
> > I have had direct experience (in the blog world) of gays feeling
> > insulted when straights use "that's so gay" as a perjorative. It feels
> > like such a juvenile and stupid expression anyway that I have no
> > problem not using it, except as a joke under very limited
> > circumstances.
>
> > How about me -- as a woman do I feel offended when people use "pussy"
> > or "cunt" as an insult? Definitely not. Never have. Maybe it's because
> > I've never felt oppressed or denied housing, jobs, education, etc. due
> > to being female. Just a wild guess. (Some women have experienced these
> > things, of course, and they may feel differently from me.)
>
> > I'm also wildly guessing that $Zero and other Italian-Americans don't
> > care much about "dago," etc. because they also have not experienced
> > the level of discrimination that blacks and gays have. From what I
> > read though, Italians do not want to see themselves constantly
> > portrayed as criminals, and I can understand that.
>
> > I used to use the word "retard" and various "tard" constructions. Sal
> > and others pointed out that there are a lot of parents online with
> > handicapped children, and it's hurtful to them to read that word. At
> > first I was all pffft. But I thought more about it and decided to
> > stop. There are plenty of other ways to insult someone's intelligence,
> > and after I was told about the parents it almost seemed bratty and
> > spiteful to keep using "tard" -- which is basically how I feel about
> > whites and straights insisting that it's fine to call people "n*ggers"
> > and "fagg*ts. Grow up already.
>
> > I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
> > realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> > doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
> > wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
> > the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
> > Hmm, mystery.
>
> > Is it being "PC" to have manners? Some would say it is. I like to use
> > swear words (a lot!), but there are plenty of times I don't. If I'm
> > with people whom I know dislike those words, and I have even a modicum
> > of respect for these people (or if they happen to sign my paycheck), I
> > refrain. It's not the least bit diffcult, and it goes with having
> > manners, IMO. There are cultures where burping at the table is a cool
> > thing to do, but it isn't cool here, so most of us try not to do it.
> > OMG, sheep! It's much more exciting to be a rebel, yes? Aaaah, I
> > burped *and* said "n*gger" *and* didn't hold the door for some cunt
> > today cuz I'm just such a free thinker. Yeah, right.
>
> > On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> > discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> > both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> > I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
> > no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
> > believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
> > (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
> > most notably PJ.
>
>
> > That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
> > searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> > me to discuss the topic at all.
>
> new thread.
>
> I do believe that being PC is a sign of good manners (as long as it's
> sincere and not a thinly veiled cover-up for bigotry), but what drives
> me nuts is peeps who take it to the point of being ridiculous. Forex,
> I've had people tell me that I shouldn't use the word "Mexican," that
> the proper words are Hispanics or Latinos. That's nuts, I've answered.
> If the person is from Mexico, the person is a Mexican, in the same way
> that I'm from America and am an American, or someone from Canada is a
> Canadian. Indian is another example. Apparently it's not PC to call
> someone an Indian, the proper term is Native American. Yet many "Native
> Americans" freely call themselves Indians. I went to a seminar and the
> speaker, who I believe was Ojibwa, constantly talked about Indians --
> not one mention of Native American anywhere in her talk. Throughout
> Michigan there are many casinos and the Indians who run them call
> themselves Indians, like the Little River Casino in Manistee, which is
> run by the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, and that's what they
> call themselves on their Web site.
>
> Then there's African Americans, which I've heard people say is the
> correct term rather than "black." Yet I know many black people who don't
> like the term "African American," don't consider themselves "African" at
> all, and don't want to be called that.
>
> Good manners are good; going overboard is goofy.
What's PC about calling people by the names they prefer?
This whole discussion hinges on the assumption of white being
normative, and figuring out what to call "others" as the white man's
(and woman's) burden.
From now on, I'm going to designate White for everyone who's not
Africanamericanmexicanlatinanativeamericanindiantribalname. . .
And we could call this place "Misc.Whiting. . ."
Chris.tine, White American
Ultraviolet
<>
> Why lie, though?
I might not be in the mood to explain -- atheism is often viewed as
odd, and people start asking questions, such as "Wot about the
flowers???" Or tt might be the case that someone is praying for
someone who's ill, and it would be entirely inappropriate to suggest
the act is pointless. Better just to nod and go along as if I believed
too. No one is hurt by my omission to state my POV, and my ego doesn't
require that I constantly do so. If people then have the wrong idea of
me... ~shurgs~
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> Its one thing to make commentaries and analysis
> on the topic of objectifying minorities. You can
> quickly surmise the obvious. These groups are what
> they are because of their ethnicity and national
> origin. Show a little class, not your ass.
>
> To try and group Christianity into the same set
> of parameters for sensitivity considerations is outside
> of the subject group. While Christianity may be a
> minority, it is a belief system and not a skin color.
>
> Religion beliefs encompass a purpose for living.
> They are intrinsically woven into the psychology
> of a believers mental health.
>
> You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
> that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
> When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
> me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
> to love and defend.
>
Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> Miz Ultraviolet wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> > I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
> > realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> > explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it. But it
> > doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
> > wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
> > the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
> > Hmm, mystery.
>
> Asian peeps don't care to have themselves labeled according to a European
> peep's point of view. And, it smacks of empires, colonizations and so forth.
Yeah, that's what I've heard, but it's not very compelling. It's like
the Indian thing PJ mentioned, or when certain women get irate about
"mankind" and such. Even so, I go along because I heart yellowtail
sashimi and crying tiger. Pemmican, not so much.
<>
--
UV
Ultraviolet
<>
> Were you the guy posting as WildePad a while back?
Heh. Wonder if he left cuz he'd killfiled everyone and thought the
froup was empty.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> On 20 Jan, 00:07, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-01-19 13:47:01 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
> > <...>> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
> > > faith, but I can't.'
>
> > > Really I don't wish it at all.
>
> > <...>
>
> > Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
> > wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
> > faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
> > "being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
> > that?
>
> Well if they did that, I'd start explaining why I can't...
And then they'd go, but what about the flowers???
Ugh. This is why I mostly don't mention my atheism in meatspace.
--
UV
Mark
> I don't believe in a Christ and I know that there is no historic "Jesus of
> Nazareth", > Sylvia
Thats an untrue statement. The existent of Jesus' life and
resurrection
was widely known throughout the world by secular people who had
no interest in Christianity. The writings that prove this, are
archived
this very day, and can easily be verified. They are ancient documents
non religious, written around the time of his life.
---
Mark
Mark
> > Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
> > wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
> > faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
> > "being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
> > that?
> Well if they did that, I'd start explaining why I can't...
It isn't that you can't, it's that you won't
It isn't that you're unable, it's that you're unwilling.
Mark
Mark
>
> Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
> different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
> ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
Wrong. I never said that religion is a choice. You did.
Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
---
Mark
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 19, 10:32 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
> > different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
> > ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
>
> Wrong. I never said that religion is a choice. You did.
I never said you said it. You used the term "belief system," IIRC, and
I am claiming that some people say that one's belief system (i.e.,
religion) is a choice and because of that, it is fair game for insult,
while ethnicity, which is not a choice, should be respected.
So, do you disagree with the statement that religion is a choice? What
about belief in the supernatural generally?
> Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
Oh.
--
UV
John Ashby
"Mark" <blueri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90ed3322-6f07-4c94...@v42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Could you give us some pointers on where to find this proof?
john
$Zero
> "Mark" <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> On Jan 19, 7:28 pm, Sylvia <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't believe in a Christ and I know that there is no historic
> >> "Jesus of Nazareth",
> >> Sylvia
> >
> >Thats an untrue statement. The existent of Jesus' life
> >and resurrection was widely known throughout the world
> >by secular people who had no interest in Christianity.
> >The writings that prove this, are archived this very day,
> >and can easily be verified. They are ancient documents
> >non religious, written around the time of his life.
>
> Could you give us some pointers on where to find this proof?
fire up Google maps and head over to Vatican City in Rome, Italy.
there you'll find quite a few changes that took place in the secular
world.
for instance, did you know that there used to be something called the
Roman Empire?
pretty big outfit, i hear.
yet somehow, it crumbled.
check out what took its place right there in Rome, where the empire's
former headquarters use to be.
...
and you said you didn't find my sense of humor funny.
hah!
-$Zero...
now, let's see. who were these historians and why
would they be motivated to write whatever they
chose to write about, when they chose to write it?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/52c94de8ce49e23d
Whenever two or more people gather in
the spirit of love, it's a bickerfest!
http://bickerfest.com
boots
>On Jan 19, 10:05 am, PJ <authores...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ultraviolet wrote:
<uuuge snippage>
>What's PC about calling people by the names they prefer?
>
>This whole discussion hinges on the assumption of white being
>normative, and figuring out what to call "others" as the white man's
>(and woman's) burden.
>
>From now on, I'm going to designate White for everyone who's not
>Africanamericanmexicanlatinanativeamericanindiantribalname. . .
>
>And we could call this place "Misc.Whiting. . ."
>
>Chris.tine, White American
Interesting how useful the phrase "hey [you]" or the pronouns "dude",
"buddy", etc can be.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
boots
>It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when Mark
><blueri...@yahoo.com> posted to misc.writing:
>
>
>> some things
>> which are obvious to us, are hidden from others.
>
>Well, when you're talking about boots, that's not uncommon.
It's less common than the converse thank you very mush.
boots
>It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when boots
><n...@no.no> posted to misc.writing:
>
>
>> You care to explain how that verbose line of crap had anything to
>> do with my comments about $Zero being fortunate? Or was it just a
>> handy place to flap your yap?
>
>OMG! Mark is "heather" to boots's "Sylvia"!
Huh?
Just Me
> realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
> explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it. But it
> doesn't matter why -- it's easy enough to use "Asian" instead, so why
> wouldn't I? That's the question. Why would you deliberately disparage
> the ethnicity of a bunch of people if there was an easy way not to?
> Hmm, mystery.
>
> swear words (a lot!), but there are plenty of times I don't. If I'm
> with people whom I know dislike those words, and I have even a modicum
> of respect for these people (or if they happen to sign my paycheck), I
> refrain. It's not the least bit diffcult, and it goes with having
> manners, IMO. There are cultures where burping at the table is a cool
> thing to do, but it isn't cool here, so most of us try not to do it.
> OMG, sheep! It's much more exciting to be a rebel, yes? Aaaah, I
> burped *and* said "n*gger" *and* didn't hold the door for some cunt
> today cuz I'm just such a free thinker. Yeah, right.
>
> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
> I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
> no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
> believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
> (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
> me to discuss the topic at all.
>
What the lady said, TOTALLY.
--
jm
boots
>On Jan 19, 4:37 pm, Wendy Chatley Green <usern...@tampabay.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> For some inexplicable reasons, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> :
>> :You insult my culture and skin color, I can accept
>> :that you are stupid, and dismiss it.
>> :When you insult my Religion, you aren't insulting
>> :me, you are insulting someone whom I'm sworn
>> :to love and defend.
>>
>> How does one defend the omnipotent creator of the universe and every
>> thing within and without? Isn't that a bit like an ant taking a stand
>> in front of my big toe and offering to beat up everyone who disagrees
>> with me?
>
>No not at all.
Horseshit, Wendy has nailed it.
> A human can defend God by allowing themselves to
>be used in his service in the presence of all that is hopeless, and
>evil, by allowing him to soberly pass on his strenght thru them, to
>let the lost see the truth that is substantiated by the existing
>standards
>of historicity and archeology. A human can defend God by allowing
>themselves to be his hands and his voice. A human defends God
>any time they allow themselves to be a living example of faith in
>the belief of his supernatural power.
>
>That is how a human defends God.
That is how a sucker defends a concept he's bought into, God is His
own defense and if you don't recognize that you're bowing down before
an idol made from whole cloth.
>> The fomulation I'm most familiar with is "to know, love, and serve
>> God." People who need to "defend" God seem to end up killing in God's
>> name (viz sicide bombers who go "boom" in the name of Allah.)
>
>There is no Allah. That is Satan.
I'm sure you'd defend that to the death. Fuckwit.
> Islam is a counterfeit knock-off
>religion of Christianity, a convoluted twist of the Old Testament,
>which encompasses the maniacal meglomania of a warlord named
>muhammed, who couldn't even get along with his own family.
>
>A false prophet is revealed if that which they predict doesn't
>come to pass, and the fruits of their labor bring death not life.
Didn't the Romans keep records of who they executed?
>Now I have answered your question. I will not entertain the idea
>of trying to persuade you to believe anything.
Ain't you somethin.
boots
boots
>It was the best of times; it was the worst of times, when Mark
><blueri...@yahoo.com> posted to misc.writing:
>
>
>>
>> Huh? I can't figure you out today.
>
>Cranky guy. Priapic, you know.
Masculenity has nothing to do with the simple fact that I'm sometimes
short-tempered. Okay, fucking usually short-tempered, deal.
boots
I did not imply on anyone's behalf that she should use a disclaimer
when she refers to Jesus as Jesus.
But you seem to have implied that there are at least two messianic
figures, one in the Judaic tradition and the other a figment of
Christianity.
Okay, I can accept that.
boots
Please post a url where those of us who are without knowledge of
ancient records confirming the existence of the man written about in
the NT can see what is there to be seen.
boots
>On 19 Jan, 20:42, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 19, 3:18 pm, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Then maybe you should try not to be quite that nice, politeness that
>> > > has pushed into outright falsehood might not serve anyone.
>>
>> > There are times when lying to be nice is better all around.
>>
>> And, there are times when lying all around the house is nice
>>
>> Mark
>
>And times when you have to stand up and spit the truth.
Hell, there are times when you find yourself puking it up without your
own volition, as if it was a bad meal.
boots
>On 20 Jan, 00:07, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-01-19 13:47:01 -0500, Jackson Pillock <andy...@btinternet.com> said:
>> <...>> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
>> > faith, but I can't.'
>>
>> > Really I don't wish it at all.
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
>> wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
>> faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
>> "being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
>> that?
>
>Well if they did that, I'd start explaining why I can't...
I'd ask why you can't if I thought it might be useful to you if you
could.
Why do you think you should?
Gravity doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, you jump, you
fall. Why should a God that created the whole bit need your faith or
belief any more than gravity does?
boots
Sorry to show my ignorance, but I don't get this whole "flowers"
reference, what are you talking about?
boots
"There's a sucker born every minute." --P.T.Barnum (supposedly)
I got a deal for you on some aluminum siding.
serenebabe
Oh, I get it. I suppose I'd even do the nod and go along in some
circumstances (like a loved one who's ill).
And I guess I get the other kind, too. I don't think I could ever
actually *lie* about it, but we do some things in our parenting that
almost invariably cause people to flip out (extended nursing,
co-sleeping, etc.) and get all judgey. Again, the lie of silence I can
understand.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 1/14
"A Woman's Right to Kill Her Baby"
serenebabe
> On Jan 19, 10:32 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
>> different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
>> ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
>
> Wrong. I never said that religion is a choice. You did.
Wow. This is a view that's going to get a lot of people's dander up.
> Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
Under most circumstances I agree that insulting people isn't
productive. Doesn't aide in communication, certainly. Trouble is, if
you think disagreeing with/not believing in someone's religion (who
most people think of as a personal choice, not an inherent quality) is
the same as insulting the person you're going to find a lot of people
insulted a lot of the time.
serenebabe
Oops.
You added in the resurrection there.
serenebabe
I usually use trees or squirrels, for some reason. :-)
> Ugh. This is why I mostly don't mention my atheism in meatspace.
But I never talk about my spirituality trying to change someone else's.
I only talk about it when I'm explaining my own.
PJ
> Miz PJ wrote:
>> boots wrote:
>>> PJ wrote:
>>>> boots wrote:
>
> [Speaking of Miz PJ]
> <...>
>>>>> It bothered me because she uses the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ'
>>>> To me, they are one and the same.
>>> I understand that. To me they are vastly different. Ask Sylvia how she
>>> feels about it if you want to get beat up on. <g>
>
> boots, why the hell would I attack Miz PJ because *you* have a problem with
> the given name of her particular religion's messiah?
>
>> No. Sylvia wouldn't beat me up because I use the terms interchangeably in
>> conversation. I know she wouldn't.
> <...>
>
> <comparing her Harpy claws to The Head Harpy's claws>
>
> Oh, absolutely *not*. No. Uh-uh.
I have a feeling your Harpy claws are quite sharp enough. <g>
>
> <holding out dish of tasty chocolate>
>
> Have one? Have three!
Only three? Where's the box???
~ ~ ~
PJ
boots
Ultraviolet
A common thing believers say when atheism is brought up is some
version of "what about the _____;" i.e., how can you explain the
beauty of a rose or the cuteness of a baby or the majesty of a
thunderstorm without belief in God. You can't start talking science
because what they really want to know is how do you explain the
universal human emotional experiences. I also find this an interesting
topic, but for me it is entirely unsatisfying to conclude goddidit.
Eventually science will explain all emotional experiences, IMO, just
as it has shed light on many other phenomena formerly regarded as
supernatural mysteries.
--
UV
Ultraviolet
> Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<>
> >Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
>
> Then I'm ignorant and you're one stupid sonofabitch.
Mark's already insulted all Muslims, so he's ignorant by his own
definition.
--
UV
Mark
> On Jan 19, 8:43 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 10:32 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
> > > different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
> > > ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
>
> > Wrong. I never said that religion is a choice. You did.
>
> I never said you said it. You used the term "belief system," IIRC, and
> I am claiming that some people say that one's belief system (i.e.,
> religion) is a choice
You are employing the technique of "circular arguing". By your
following
statement, and I quote-
.....people take YOUR PREMISE...............................
................................that *because* religion is a
choice.......
So yes, you said I said it. Now, lets stop nit picking the
sentences to death, or dissolve into arguing about arguing.
You implied that I said religion is a choice, and now I will
support my position as to why "true religion" is not.
>and because of that, it is fair game for insult,
> while ethnicity, which is not a choice, should be respected.
>
> So, do you disagree with the statement that religion is a choice?
Yes. Since ancient times, all races of man have had an innate longing
to connect with their originator. This will not go away. The Bible
says
to love the Lord with all your strength, heart, and MIND. Therefore,
everyone who believes anything concerning reality does so with the
facilities of their intellect, as well as their gut feeling.
Anyone who *has* a reasonably functioning mind will early on come
to certain conclusions regarding God. At that point, they are more or
less held within that belief system.
"You have no choice to believe what you do, until you are educated
to the facts of something else." In that regard, you are somewhat
locked into your beliefs.
"No one can follow a religion if your sense of reasoning and intellect
will not let you do it." Nor, should you be expected to.
Your decision to believe or not believe has to be the consequences
of your level of understanding. Until your level of understanding is
elevated, then you have no choice to believe that except which you
can comprehend. That defines "no choice".
>What
> about belief in the supernatural generally?
I have witnessed the supernatural first hand on many occasions.
I have studied it in depth. What you call "supernatural" in fact,
isn't
supernatural. It is natural. All of reality isn't defined by what we
know
as science, that is, the ability to replicate results within a
controlled
environment. Unexplained phenomenon exist with regularity, and to
a large degree I understand much of it. But since we don't control the
environment in which it occurs, then we are unable to replicate and
predict it, which means that the narrow scope of science will not
recognize it.
> > Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
>
> Oh.
Whatda you mean Oh? You take the position that certain minorities
are fair game for judgement, and when I tell you it's rude, you act as
if you didn't take that position.
If you have a stance on a position contrary to mine, I'll be glad to
explain my reasoning. I won't however argue for the sake of arguing,
or fall prey to circular reasoning, or stall tactics which simply
"eat up the clock". I am a master chess player, and looking
ahead I smell a stalemate which comes from the inevitable fact
that yes you are entitled to your unproveable opinion, and I am
to mine. So when were you going to pull out the flat denial of
my data, and after a long extracted effort on my part to prove
you wrong, then dogmatically categorize my facts as insignificant,
and then finally when you run out of leverage, attack my character
and objectify me in an attempt to negate my conclusions.
Uh, yeah don't do that, or I'll call you boots.
> UV
Mark
Wendy Chatley Green
:Now I have answered your question. I will not entertain the idea
:of trying to persuade you to believe anything.
Good. I rather like being MoSynodLutheran. We drink beer at our
potlucks and use wine for communion.
--
Wendy (some explain to the guy the difference between)
Chatley ('witness' and 'defend')
Green -- wcgreen-at-lycos.com
Ultraviolet
> On Jan 20, 12:00 am, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 19, 8:43 pm, Mark <blueriver...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 19, 10:32 pm, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, no. Some people take your premises and arrive at quite a
> > > > different conclusion: that *because* religion is a choice, unlike
> > > > ethnicity, it is fair game for insult.
>
> > > Wrong. I never said that religion is a choice. You did.
>
> > I never said you said it. You used the term "belief system," IIRC, and
> > I am claiming that some people say that one's belief system (i.e.,
> > religion) is a choice
>
> You are employing the technique of "circular arguing". By your
> following
> statement, and I quote-
>
> .....people take YOUR PREMISE...............................
You're not quoting: I said "premises." :)
> ................................that *because* religion is a
> choice.......
That's what *I* said. It wasn't a quote of your words. I didn't
restate your premises. You should brush up on the definition of
"quoting." Neither one of us quoted.
> So yes, you said I said it.
No, I didn't.
> Now, lets stop nit picking the
> sentences to death, or dissolve into arguing about arguing.
> You implied that I said religion is a choice, and now I will
> support my position as to why "true religion" is not.
You inferred.
> >and because of that, it is fair game for insult,
> > while ethnicity, which is not a choice, should be respected.
>
> > So, do you disagree with the statement that religion is a choice?
>
> Yes. Since ancient times, all races of man have had an innate longing
> to connect with their originator. This will not go away.
I tend to agree that most people's brains have a "god-shaped spot,"
making them more susceptible to belief in the supernatural.
> The Bible says
> to love the Lord with all your strength, heart, and MIND. Therefore,
> everyone who believes anything concerning reality does so with the
> facilities of their intellect, as well as their gut feeling.
'Kay, the Bible says, so it must be true. Gotcha.
> Anyone who *has* a reasonably functioning mind will early on come
> to certain conclusions regarding God. At that point, they are more or
> less held within that belief system.
Again, I tend to agree that what we believed as children re the
existence of the supernatural will probably stay with us.
> "You have no choice to believe what you do, until you are educated
> to the facts of something else." In that regard, you are somewhat
> locked into your beliefs.
If this is an actual quote, it should be attributed.
> "No one can follow a religion if your sense of reasoning and intellect
> will not let you do it." Nor, should you be expected to.
Then why are you browbeating Jackson?
> Your decision to believe or not believe has to be the consequences
> of your level of understanding. Until your level of understanding is
> elevated, then you have no choice to believe that except which you
> can comprehend. That defines "no choice".
Uh huh. Atheists R dumb. Gotcha.
> >What
>
> > about belief in the supernatural generally?
>
> I have witnessed the supernatural first hand on many occasions.
> I have studied it in depth. What you call "supernatural" in fact,
> isn't supernatural. It is natural.
How do you know what I'm calling "supernatural?" I haven't said what
it is. Genies? Vampires? Angels? Ghosties? The toof fairy!!
> All of reality isn't defined by what we know
> as science, that is, the ability to replicate results within a
> controlled environment. Unexplained phenomenon exist with regularity, and to
> a large degree I understand much of it. But since we don't control the
> environment in which it occurs, then we are unable to replicate and
> predict it, which means that the narrow scope of science will not
> recognize it.
Science has relentlessly explained much of the heretofore inexplicable
and will continue to do so.
> > > Furthermore, to insult people for any reason is ignorant.
>
> > Oh.
>
> Whatda you mean Oh? You take the position that certain minorities
> are fair game for judgement, and when I tell you it's rude, you act as
> if you didn't take that position.
You will quote my words that make this outrageous claim, I hope. Here,
I'll help you understand what that means: find where I wrote that I
BELIEVE THAT certain minorities are fair game for judg[e]ment and
repost those words in quote marks with a link. Thx.
> If you have a stance on a position contrary to mine, I'll be glad to
> explain my reasoning.
I tend to believe that belief in the supernatural isn't a choice, and
the selection of a belief system isn't much of a choice either if you
were shown only one as a child. Some people do reevaluate, ponder, and
investigate alternative systems as adults and at that point possibly
make a choice, but I don't know what percentage of people do this and
tend to think it's probably not that high. I don't think any of this
contradicts your position.
> I won't however argue for the sake of arguing,
> or fall prey to circular reasoning, or stall tactics which simply
> "eat up the clock". I am a master chess player, and looking
> ahead I smell a stalemate which comes from the inevitable fact
> that yes you are entitled to your unproveable opinion, and I am
> to mine. So when were you going to pull out the flat denial of
> my data, and after a long extracted effort on my part to prove
> you wrong, then dogmatically categorize my facts as insignificant,
> and then finally when you run out of leverage, attack my character
> and objectify me in an attempt to negate my conclusions.
Defensive much, Mark? You are free not to read or respond to my posts
if you have something better to do. I won't be hurt, promise.
> Uh, yeah don't do that, or I'll call you boots.
I like boots.
--
UV
Mark
> Could you give us some pointers on where to find this proof?
>
> john
Otto Betz (What do we know about Jesus?) concludes that,
"no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity
of Jesus"
CORNELIUS TACITUS (born A.D 52-54)
A Roman historian, in 112 A.D., Governor of Asia, son-in-law of Julius
Agricola wwho was Governor of Britian A.D. 80-84. Writing of the reign
of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and the existence of
Christians at Rome.
"But not all the relief could come from man, not all the bounties that
the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be
presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of
being
believed to have order the conflagaration, the fire of Rome. Hence to
suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with guilt, and punished with
the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians,
who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the
name,
put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of
Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke
out again, not only through Jedea, where the mischidf originated,
but through the city of Rome also." - Annals
The following men wrote about Jesus in his time;
LUCIAN- A satirist of the second century spoke scornfully
of Christ and Christians. He connected them with the
synagogues of Palestine and alluded to Christ as:
".....the man who was crucified in Palestine because
he introduced this new cult into the world.
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (born A.D.37)
A jewish historian, became a Pharisee at age 19;
in A.D 66 he was the commander of Jewish forces
in Galilee.
SEUTONIUS (A.D. 120)
A Roman historian , court official under Hadrian, annalist
of the Imperial House, says: As the Jews were making
constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (another
spelling of Christus), he expelled them from Rome."
PLINIUS SECUNDUS, PLINY THE YOUNGER
(Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor)
TERTULLIAN
Jurist-theologian of Carthage
THALLUS, THE SAMARIAN BORN HISTORIAN
LETTER OF MARA BAR-SERAPION
Housed in the British Museum (A.D. 73)
JUSTIN MARTYR
philosopher, born at Flavia Neapolis. Well educated,
led a life of study and travel
THE JEWISH TALMUDS
Tol'doth Yeshu. Jesus is referred to as "Ben Pandera."
Ok, hows that for starters. I know of no scholar or person
of minute intellect that would deny the existence of Jesus.
There are literally volumes written about him by nonbelievers
back in the time of his life, for just as today, his miracles
and fame were spread far and wide, and written about by
skeptics as well as believers.
---
Mark
Mark
>
> Under most circumstances I agree that insulting people isn't
> productive. Doesn't aide in communication, certainly. Trouble is, if
> you think disagreeing with/not believing in someone's religion (who
> most people think of as a personal choice, not an inherent quality) is
> the same as insulting the person you're going to find a lot of people
> insulted a lot of the time.
No, I don't believe they're one in the same.
Common sense shows what insulting is.
--
mark
> --
> It's All About We! (the column)http://www.serenebabe.net/- new 1/14
Alan Hope
>On 19 Jan, 15:44, Ultraviolet <paula.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>(...)
>> I made the switch from "Oriental" to "Asian" a while back when I
>> realized that Asians dislike being called the other. I think Hope
>> explained why, though I'm still not all that clear on it.
>'Oriental' describes an occidental viewpoint, with Asians a presumed
>cultural and geographical other.
Yes. Oriental describes them only in relation to us: they're from East
of us. It doesn't say anything about them at all, or accord them any
autonomous existence at all, which is ludicrous since they were
civilised while we were still running around daubed in woad.
>(...)
>> On a somewhat related note, as an atheist I find it difficult to
>> discuss faith without being insulting. It's not possible to say that I
>> both respect belief in the supernatural and at the same time say that
>> I think it's all fairy tales. But anything less would be a lie. I have
>> no problem lying, so many times I do that or just keep quiet. Most
>> believers also end up being insulting, even if they don't "mean" to
>> (I'm just looking out for your eternal soul!), with some exceptions,
>> most notably PJ. That's not a satisfactory excuse though, so I'm still
>> searching for a way, not that it's of earth-shattering importance for
>> me to discuss the topic at all.
>If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
>faith, but I can't.'
>Really I don't wish it at all.
>
>>
>> Carry on.
>>
>> --
>> UV
Alan Hope
>'Faith' is a funny word. On one hand it can mean that you have a
>level of confidence in your experience or knowledge. On the other
>hand it can mean you wish you had a level of confidence in what you
>would like to be true.
>
>I have faith that I have somehow misrepresented that and that some
>kindly soul will be along presently to correct me, but I don't quite
>see how 'faith' can have nearly opposite meanings. Are there other
>words
You're talking about your own crackpot definition of faith. Jackson
was referring to the one used in conventional Christian discourse.
Alan Hope
>On 2009-01-19 13:47:01 -0500, Jackson Pillock <and...@btinternet.com> said:
><...>
>> If I'm trying to be really nice, I fall back on 'I wish I could have
>> faith, but I can't.'
>> Really I don't wish it at all.
><...>
>Yikes! That must get you some annoying responses. If I heard that "I
>wish I could have faith" I'd think the person was actually seeking
>faith in something. Wouldn't cross my mind that you/they were just
>"being nice." Don't you get people trying to "help you" when you say
>that?
I thought that when I read the original mention. Fucksake man, you may
as well leave the door open to the Witnesses and the rest of the
crazies (Hi, Skippy!).
I think I'd prefer to say I lost my faith as the result of a tragic
testicular accident, thereby shutting down all follow-up. In real
life, luckily, I don't live in America, so it's acceptable to guffaw
in the face of anyone who wants to lead you to Jeebus.