Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

Religions are, by their nature, irrational things. They depend on people suspending reason. Critiques of "religion" are themselves irrational because they attempt to frame an irrational concept within a construct of reason.

You have yourself just given a rational critique of Religion.

I mean, I agree with you over the impossibility of "hating" a religion yet not hating the religious. But your here argument is just plain moosepoop. I rationally dislike Dark Age paganism because I rationally come to the conclusion that sacrificing family members every 9 years is, rationally, dumb as feth.

It is entirely possible to dislike something, even heavily, and yet not do anything about it. That's the very definition of tolerance, i.e., to allow that which we dislike. The problem comes from believing yourself free of bias or prejudice on the basis of the simple heuristics of claiming to dislike the religion, not the concept.

I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

Religions are, by their nature, irrational things. They depend on people suspending reason. Critiques of "religion" are themselves irrational because they attempt to frame an irrational concept within a construct of reason.

You have yourself just given a rational critique of Religion.

I mean, I agree with you over the impossibility of "hating" a religion yet not hating the religious. But your here argument is just plain moosepoop. I rationally dislike Dark Age paganism because I rationally come to the conclusion that sacrificing family members every 9 years is, rationally, dumb as feth.

It is entirely possible to dislike something, even heavily, and yet not do anything about it. That's the very definition of tolerance, i.e., to allow that which we dislike. The problem comes from believing yourself free of bias or prejudice on the basis of the simple heuristics of claiming to dislike the religion, not the concept.

It's not a critique, rational or not, of religion but a critique of a critique. It's like trying to mathematically express the notion of a third(it just goes on and on with out a final conclusion). You can do it with fractions but not with division . You need the somewhat inaccurate symbol/language in order to even have a discussion. Do we have to make allowances in order to have the discussion? Yes, but the exactness of language must suffer a bit in the process.

In regards to dark age religion...It's dumb unless it actually worked. Which is something that neither you nor I can prove or disprove. We can certainly believe it didn't work but we have no proof that it did or didn't work. Just irrational belief. That's the problem with religious debates in general....we can't prove a point one way or another. In the end result we could all be wrong and Xenu is coming for us all with his flight of DC-10's.

And in your example you ARE using the actions of individuals as the basis for your dislike. I'll assume you wouldn't care about the sacrifice of family memebers if no one did it because they thought it was dumb too.

My basic thesis is pretty simple. Religion, as an abstract, only exists as the confluence of an idea and action. The idea is not what offends. It is always the action part of the equation that causes trouble. That's the place to get pissed off. Not the idea.

ender502

 thekingofkings wrote:
I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

It may not have anything to do with race, but it's a pretty bad reason to hate a religion. This doesn't exactly make you look like a good and tolerant person.

As for the idea of rational criticism of religion, of course you can make rational arguments against religion. There are plenty of factual arguments that no currently-existing religion is at all plausible. There are plenty of ethical arguments that various religions (or branches of religions) has morally awful beliefs. The issue here is not saying "{religion} is bad because X", it's when that criticism turns into "{race/culture} is bad" and ignorant generalizations are made about a vast and diverse group of people.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

It may not have anything to do with race, but it's a pretty bad reason to hate a religion. This doesn't exactly make you look like a good and tolerant person.

maybe I just really really love bacon and beer. The point is there are legitimate non racial reasons. The same could be said about you as well considering some of your posts.

 thekingofkings wrote:
maybe I just really really love bacon and beer.

And Islam is not going to take them from you. What you're actually saying here is "I hate Islam because Muslims don't share my love of bacon and beer", which is a pretty awful thing to say.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Nope. It's no different than the way I don't condone smoking but I don't berate or mistreat my friends and relatives that are smokers. Opposing the idea that it's ok to smoke doesnt require you to treat smokers maliciously or preclude you from having positive relationships with smokers.

You're comparing sexual identity/religious faith to a consumable product. This is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There is insidious evil on the left and there are ample examples of it in both US history and world history. Whether you consider leftist the communism side of the communism<---> fascism scale or if you go further and place both communism and fascism on the left of the authority <---> liberty scale since both are statist philosophies just with different rationales (the benefit of the people/the benefit of the state) you find evil on the left.

It's the rose colored glasses of the supporters of both parties that cause so much of our problems.

A much bigger problem is contrived arguments. For instance, for some reason you've decided that the quote "insidious evil of the left" referred to all leftist groups, through all history, in any part of world. Obviously Stalinist Russia was a very horrible kind of evil, but that's nothing to do with the argument that was put forward by thekingofkings. When he made that comment, he was responding to a comment about Trump's thin skin, he responded by attacking progressives, in particular their attacks on Trump right now. He concluded this by referring to 'the insidious evil of the left'.

So either we're left with an argument that US Democrats in 2016 are an insidious evil, or that the existence of evil leftist groups at some points in world history means that US Democrats in 2016 are bad. Either way the argument was amazingly terrible, and you really shouldn't be trying to defend it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Narratives?

My analysis of Clinton was based on my own life experience and cold, hard facts.

Analysis is the amalgamation of individual facts in to a coherent narrative. Exactly why some minor things become part of one story, or analysis, while major things don't become part of another story is a big question. Simply saying that you made your own analysis denies the existence of that process, it assume you look at all times with clear eyes and no bias. It basically denies the value of thinking about the process of thinking.

The idea, that Clinton, in league with companies that had done so much to take manufacturing jobs out of the USA, was going to ride to the rescue of the Rust Belt states, was nonsense last year, last month, and last week when I wrote it!

That was never a narrative in the campaign. I don't know where you got that from or why you made it up. Once again, Clinton was amazingly honest in talking about Pennsylvania coal, telling people those jobs aren't coming back. Meanwhile Trump promised he would reverse a thirty five year decline in manufacturing jobs with... promises and slogans on hats. The narrative produced from this was that Clinton was more dishonest. It's an incredibly bonkers conclusion, and exactly how it came about could probably fill a couple of dozen books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steelmage99 wrote:
You keep conflating the ideology and the people who hold them.

Once again, what is a vague, abstract concept in your head is actually a lived, daily part of those people's lives.

You are essentially strawmanning by continuously misrepresenting what is being said.
In addition, I don't give a flying fundamentalist in what specific ways it actually applies to a person - because I am not talking about the person!

And I'm explaining, over and over again, that you can't separate the the two.

The fact that you seem unable to - or recognize that some people are unable to - draw a distinction between the two doesn't prevent other people from doing just that.

The fact that you think you that you can seperate religion from the religious person doesn't mean you can.

Anyhow, you've just responded to three of my posts, and each response amounts to nothing more than 'nuh uh, can too'. This is not productive. If you want to actually advance the conversation, you need to respond to my argument that your theorised separation only works when 'religion' and 'religious person' are thought of as abstract concepts, where one is thought by as little as just a title given to some people. But if a person takes morale guidance from a religion's books and its leaders, takes his vows under such a religion, spends time daily using that faith to consider his life and world... you can't tell that person you think his religion is evil, but that you have nothing against that guy personally.

The fact that some people are so deeply invested in their given ideology to the point where they are unable to distinguish between the two cannot be my problem - especially if I go out of my way to clarify that I do make that distinction.
This applies to religious views as well as political - and everything in between.

It is not a problem when people take on a religion as a major part of their lives and their identity. Your statement above couldn't be more wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Given the importance of the USA to the world's economy, and as leader of the Free World, to use a loose term, everyone has got to live with Trump.

It is already clear that Trump is going to be the most corrupt and incompetent President since Warren Harding.

Trump has played up to the racist fringe way more than other Republicans, but other than that I'm really not sure where he's set out policies that are any different to an ordinary Republican president. A big, unaffordable tax cut, a big infrastructure plan that's actually just a tax cut to existing infrastructure providers, an incoherent foreign policy that swings between isolationism and kill 'em all macho posturing... these are ordinary Republican things.

The only difference to me is that this time around Trump is so terrible at politics that he's much less able to paper over the craziness of the Republican agenda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I guess all the innocents that died as collateral damage in drone strikes and bombing campaigns authorized by the Obama administration don't count? Or does Obama fit your definition of a "conservative"?

Obama's second term is almost finished, and I still have no idea if we're supposed to be angry at Obama because because he was soft on terrorists, or because he murdered thousands in his illegal overseas wars against terrorism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
maybe I just really really love bacon and beer.

And Islam is not going to take them from you. What you're actually saying here is "I hate Islam because Muslims don't share my love of bacon and beer", which is a pretty awful thing to say.

If I were to convert or shariah law implemented then yes it would. its no more awful than saying "I hate the Philadelphia Eagles"

 thekingofkings wrote:


I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

There are plenty of Christians that do not drink because of a religious prohibition...I think there was somethinga bout that in US history...

So, that's either not a good reason, you hate christianity just as much or you are hiding from the truth of your own feelings. Again, and I really have to stress this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with irrational hate. There is nothing wrong with hate in general. I couldn't care less. We all hate things. I hate hipster beards. Those beards make me want to invest in a hockey mask and a supply of machetes and go all Jason Vorhees on somebody. It's completely irrational. So very not progressive of me, I know.

It's the dishonesty that gets my goat.

ender502

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But rather I defend someone's ability to hate an ideology without being called a bigot because to be a bigot requires an irrational intolerance, not simply an intolerance.

And once again, is an irrational act of stereotyping to believe you can form a single opinion on the religion of 1 billion people, when that religion varies from Wahhabism to Sufi Islam, and covers cultures as different as the Gulf States and South East Asia. I've typed that little spiel out three or four times now, and you've never addressed it. Because you can't. Because any effort to think it is okay to judge a whole religion must deny that there is any diversity within that religion.

If you don't think there's good reasons for someone to potentially hate Islam (or almost any organised religion for that matter) then I think that says more to your lack of insight.

There are, of course, quite a few parts of Islam that are very bad indeed. People make a big deal about terrorism, and while that's certainly a big deal, the victimisation of women and honour killing is even worse. People can most certainly comment on those specific problems without being called bigoted.

The point, again, is that to take one or a few parts of a religion, and use that to condemn the whole of the religion, is an act of crude stereotyping, which is also known as bigotry.

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

There are plenty of Christians that do not drink because of a religious prohibition...I think there was somethinga bout that in US history...

So, that's either not a good reason, you hate christianity just as much or you are hiding from the truth of your own feelings. Again, and I really have to stress this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with irrational hate. There is nothing wrong with hate in general. I couldn't care less. We all hate things. I hate hipster beards. Those beards make me want to invest in a hockey mask and a supply of machetes and go all Jason Vorhees on somebody. It's completely irrational. So very not progressive of me, I know.

It's the dishonesty that gets my goat.

ender502

You cant simply assume hypocrisy or dishonesty in people you neither know nor know anything about. How would I know if somewhere in your past a clown wearing a hipster beard killed your puppy, that doesnt make it irrational.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
maybe I just really really love bacon and beer.

And Islam is not going to take them from you. What you're actually saying here is "I hate Islam because Muslims don't share my love of bacon and beer", which is a pretty awful thing to say.

If I were to convert or shariah law implemented then yes it would. its no more awful than saying "I hate the Philadelphia Eagles"

If you converted, why would you object to their holy laws? or more to the point, if you object to their holy laws, why would you convert?

are you really worried that sharia law is going to me implemented so you'd have to follow it? I think we found the irrational fear here.

But speaking of sharia law in the states, you know all those christians passing their freedom of religion laws, they're allowing muslims to practice sharia law on US soil. But that still only applies to muslims, and not you.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

There are plenty of Christians that do not drink because of a religious prohibition...I think there was somethinga bout that in US history...

So, that's either not a good reason, you hate christianity just as much or you are hiding from the truth of your own feelings. Again, and I really have to stress this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with irrational hate. There is nothing wrong with hate in general. I couldn't care less. We all hate things. I hate hipster beards. Those beards make me want to invest in a hockey mask and a supply of machetes and go all Jason Vorhees on somebody. It's completely irrational. So very not progressive of me, I know.

It's the dishonesty that gets my goat.

ender502

You cant simply assume hypocrisy or dishonesty in people you neither know nor know anything about. How would I know if somewhere in your past a clown wearing a hipster beard killed your puppy, that doesnt make it irrational.

How did you know!?

In the wonderful internet all we can know of someone is what they post. When I see posts devoid of reason and logic I can only assume that is what characterizes the person who posted.

I think it is neither reasonable or logical to hate an idea. Hate of an idea is therefore irrational. Irrational hate is bigotry.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to hate a person for their actions (that fething hipster clown!). I think you can hate a terrorist in a reasonable manner. I just find it unreasonable to claim that it is reasonable to hate an irrational idea that motivates them...UNLESS..they claim the idea is reasonable. In that case it can be subject to scrutiny with reason and logic.

ender502

 thekingofkings wrote:
If I were to convert or shariah law implemented then yes it would.

If you convert then it's your choice, it makes no sense to say "I hate X, because if I decide to do X then I won't like it". Nobody is forcing you to convert to Islam, nor is shariah law going to be implemented in the US. Your reasons for hating Islam might not be racist, but they aren't good reasons.

its no more awful than saying "I hate the Philadelphia Eagles"

Of course it is. Which football team a person likes is not a huge part of their identity. Their religion is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
If I were to convert or shariah law implemented then yes it would.

If you convert then it's your choice, it makes no sense to say "I hate X, because if I decide to do X then I won't like it". Nobody is forcing you to convert to Islam, nor is shariah law going to be implemented in the US. Your reasons for hating Islam might not be racist, but they aren't good reasons.

its no more awful than saying "I hate the Philadelphia Eagles"

Of course it is. Which football team a person likes is not a huge part of their identity. Their religion is.

That really depends on the person. It sounds to me that you are basically putting your belief as the final arbiter and whoever disagrees must therefore be the irrational.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

There are plenty of Christians that do not drink because of a religious prohibition...I think there was somethinga bout that in US history...

So, that's either not a good reason, you hate christianity just as much or you are hiding from the truth of your own feelings. Again, and I really have to stress this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with irrational hate. There is nothing wrong with hate in general. I couldn't care less. We all hate things. I hate hipster beards. Those beards make me want to invest in a hockey mask and a supply of machetes and go all Jason Vorhees on somebody. It's completely irrational. So very not progressive of me, I know.

It's the dishonesty that gets my goat.

ender502

You cant simply assume hypocrisy or dishonesty in people you neither know nor know anything about. How would I know if somewhere in your past a clown wearing a hipster beard killed your puppy, that doesnt make it irrational.

How did you know!?

In the wonderful internet all we can know of someone is what they post. When I see posts devoid of reason and logic I can only assume that is what characterizes the person who posted.

I think it is neither reasonable or logical to hate an idea. Hate of an idea is therefore irrational. Irrational hate is bigotry.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to hate a person for their actions (that fething hipster clown!). I think you can hate a terrorist in a reasonable manner. I just find it unreasonable to claim that it is reasonable to hate an irrational idea that motivates them...UNLESS..they claim the idea is reasonable. In that case it can be subject to scrutiny with reason and logic.

ender502

Bigotry is not irrational hate, it is simply to quote Merriam Webster "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

 thekingofkings wrote:
You cant simply assume hypocrisy or dishonesty in people you neither know nor know anything about. How would I know if somewhere in your past a clown wearing a hipster beard killed your puppy, that doesnt make it irrational.

Umm, yeah that would be irrational. It would be extrapolating a single experience on to all people with similar features, even though those features (hipsterism, beards) obviously aren't actually correlated with puppy killing. That is about as irrational as it gets.

It doesn't mean that we can't sympathise with the person in a lot of ways, the trauma of having one's puppy killed can screw with a person, we shouldn't condemn them if they aren't completely rational about the matter. But it doesn't mean we should pretend they are being rational, either.

What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

 thekingofkings wrote:
That really depends on the person. It sounds to me that you are basically putting your belief as the final arbiter and whoever disagrees must therefore be the irrational.

Are you honestly claiming that "favorite football team" and "religion you are part of" are really equivalent things in importance for a meaningful number of people, and that's just a matter of personal opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

Apparently it isn't fair to call the anti-Muslim politicians "racists" because they might not hate Islam for racist reasons, they might just love bacon a lot.

 d-usa wrote:
What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

Nothing, and if people want to keep dragging this thread in BS territory, it's going to get locked.

 d-usa wrote:
What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

There is no politics anymore. There is culture war nonsense that people have been conned in to thinking is politics, and there is a Trump/Republican political agenda on stuff like a big tax cut for the rich, and a big hand out to companies to build infrastructure they were going to build anyway.

People debate the former, people vote based on the former. Then they get screwed by the latter, and while they get screwed by the latter they keep debating the former.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

Nothing, and if people want to keep dragging this thread in BS territory, it's going to get locked.

I thought this thread was a safe space? I'd hate to see it go...

President-elect Trump has his team working on the plan to halt the delivery of middle eastern refugees to our shores.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
That really depends on the person. It sounds to me that you are basically putting your belief as the final arbiter and whoever disagrees must therefore be the irrational.

Are you honestly claiming that "favorite football team" and "religion you are part of" are really equivalent things in importance for a meaningful number of people, and that's just a matter of personal opinion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
What does "I hate Islam because I love bacon" really have to do with politics at this point?

Apparently it isn't fair to call the anti-Muslim politicians "racists" because they might not hate Islam for racist reasons, they might just love bacon a lot.

absolutely, I have met many a broncos fan for whom that team is far more important to them than their religion, and that is not even counting the atheists. Noone gets to determine what is most important for a persons identity but that person themself. There are alot of folks whose religion is not a defining part of them.

A whole lot of people seem to be blind to the distinction between hatred and dislike. You don't tolerate what you hate. It is a hatred specifically because it is not something you can tolerate. Hatred is intense hostility. Adult, intelligent and mature human beings reserve hatred for that which aims at destroying or debasing them, not for a group of people that have decided to ban motherfething pig meat or ethanol consumables.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
If I were to convert or shariah law implemented then yes it would.

If you convert then it's your choice, it makes no sense to say "I hate X, because if I decide to do X then I won't like it". Nobody is forcing you to convert to Islam, nor is shariah law going to be implemented in the US. Your reasons for hating Islam might not be racist, but they aren't good reasons.

its no more awful than saying "I hate the Philadelphia Eagles"

Of course it is. Which football team a person likes is not a huge part of their identity. Their religion is.

That really depends on the person. It sounds to me that you are basically putting your belief as the final arbiter and whoever disagrees must therefore be the irrational.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


I cant agree with that, I hate islam because if it would make me give up beer and bacon, and other foods that I love. It has nothing to do with "race" at all.

There are plenty of Christians that do not drink because of a religious prohibition...I think there was somethinga bout that in US history...

So, that's either not a good reason, you hate christianity just as much or you are hiding from the truth of your own feelings. Again, and I really have to stress this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with irrational hate. There is nothing wrong with hate in general. I couldn't care less. We all hate things. I hate hipster beards. Those beards make me want to invest in a hockey mask and a supply of machetes and go all Jason Vorhees on somebody. It's completely irrational. So very not progressive of me, I know.

It's the dishonesty that gets my goat.

ender502

You cant simply assume hypocrisy or dishonesty in people you neither know nor know anything about. How would I know if somewhere in your past a clown wearing a hipster beard killed your puppy, that doesnt make it irrational.

How did you know!?

In the wonderful internet all we can know of someone is what they post. When I see posts devoid of reason and logic I can only assume that is what characterizes the person who posted.

I think it is neither reasonable or logical to hate an idea. Hate of an idea is therefore irrational. Irrational hate is bigotry.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to hate a person for their actions (that fething hipster clown!). I think you can hate a terrorist in a reasonable manner. I just find it unreasonable to claim that it is reasonable to hate an irrational idea that motivates them...UNLESS..they claim the idea is reasonable. In that case it can be subject to scrutiny with reason and logic.

ender502

Bigotry is not irrational hate, it is simply to quote Merriam Webster "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

You did read the second half of the definition...right? I guess I was wrong, treating a racial or ethnic group is absolutely not irrational hate. righty-o.

And if you don't like Islam...don't join. Also, don't write into law policies which target people simply because they don't eat bacon. Will we be putting vegans on the list too? What about jewish people that keep kosher?

It's sort of a moot point... Unless Trump and his cronies are complete jack-a-lopes they will not make a registry based on religion (which would most likely not stand constitutional muster) but based on national origin. Korematsu v united states tells us that is AOK.

Ofcourse, and my entire problem with this in the first place, is that any such list will be used as evidence of how the US hates muslims. It will be a recruiting and radicalization tool. The conservatives will have handed that over to terrorist groups and then be surprised when..dun! dun!dun! "it seems people from the middle east don't like us! How could that have happened?" It's a bad idea that will only create more reasons to radicalize and make America less safe.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:

It's not a critique, rational or not, of religion but a critique of a critique.

Which applies specifically to Religion, as per your context. Irrationality is a polar opposite of rationality, not a transcendant one. Sometimes, in trying to say something which makes a lot of sense, we say things that don't make any. That's fine, but you should not be too quick to jump to the defense of your envolées lyriques. Ineffability is rarely a good foundation.

 ender502 wrote:
In regards to dark age religion...It's dumb unless it actually worked. Which is something that neither you nor I can prove or disprove. We can certainly believe it didn't work but we have no proof that it did or didn't work. Just irrational belief. That's the problem with religious debates in general....we can't prove a point one way or another. In the end result we could all be wrong and Xenu is coming for us all with his flight of DC-10's.

All value driven discussions are hard to naviguate, not just those on Religion. But we are Moderns, or at least their children. We can no longer hide from the fact that all languages are logic-driven. The point is not weither or not it works, for all we care, it's never going to works, and that's how the Gods wired the world, as one big fething joke on us. The point is that judgement and rationality extends everywhere, that no object is beyond their reach, even if it can sometimes be well beyond their mastery. Irrational beleifs are the same.

 ender502 wrote:

My basic thesis is pretty simple. Religion, as an abstract, only exists as the confluence of an idea and action. The idea is not what offends. It is always the action part of the equation that causes trouble. That's the place to get pissed off. Not the idea.

ender502

Your thesis seems unsupported by the arguments provided. "Idea" is already enough of a hazy concept as is, I don't see what prevents them from seeding outrage in anyone. Anders Breivik's ideas are absolutely discusting, and I would happily (but illegaly) do violence to anyone seriously advocating them to my face. If the way you practice and live your religion is in anyway similar to that of that maniac, then it is perfectly righteous to hate the idea as well. But that's not Islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

absolutely, I have met many a broncos fan for whom that team is far more important to them than their religion

Yes, I suppose it always helps to remind ourselves that so many people out there are just simple idiots.

Mitochondria wrote:
President-elect Trump has his team working on the plan to halt the delivery of middle eastern refugees to our shores.

I thought it was intense screening. Has it turned out that was a lie, and now he's gone back to no refugees at all again?

Meanwhile, back in the part of our government that doesn't view science as a four-letter word, the military is preparing for the impact of Climate Change. Analysis, Risk Assessment and Planning are their strengths, but what do they know?

I love these parts...

"The House voted in June to bar the Defense Department from spending money to evaluate how climate change would affect military training, combat, weapons purchases and other needs."

"We see the rising sea levels and flooding events," said Capt. Dean VanderLey, who oversees Navy infrastructure in the mid-Atlantic region. "We have a responsibility to prepare for the future. We don't have the luxury of just burying our heads in the sand."


http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/military-plans-for-climate-change-despite-skeptics/ar-AAkxdpC?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/17/trump-adviser-roger-stone-alex-jones-will-be-valuable-asset-new-trump-admin/214526

op Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone told The Washington Post that conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones will be a “valuable asset” who will rally the public in support of President-elect Donald Trump’s new administration.

Jones is a toxic conspiracy theorist who believes the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, school shootings, and other tragedies like the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and the Oklahoma City bombing. He today doubled down on conspiracy theories regarding the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The Washington Post profiled Jones in a November 17 piece and noted that Trump helped bring Jones into the “mainstream.” Trump appeared on his program in December and praised him as having an “amazing” reputation.

Jones spent much of the 2016 presidential campaign pushing Trump to his radio and online audience. He recently said Trump repaid his efforts after the November 8 results by personally calling him to thank his audience for their support and said he would be on the program shortly.

Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone took credit for setting up Jones and Trump and told the Post that the two “hit it off.”

Stone, who takes credit for persuading Jones to support Trump, envisions the Web impresario as a potent force during the new administration, a bridge between the presidency and a restless, skeptical slice of the population. “He’s a valuable asset—somebody has to rally the people around President Trump’s legislative program,” Stone says.

[…]

Stone says he had spent nearly three decades trying to figure out how to make Donald Trump president. He thought his new friend, Jones, could help.

He particularly liked the idea of Trump appearing on the Jones shows, because “they are reaching the Trump constituencies,” Stone says. “They are reaching the people who knock on the doors.”

Trump, according to Stone, wasn’t difficult to persuade. The president-elect is “an inveterate watcher of television. He has watched Infowars, Stone says. “They hit it off.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/daughter-sandy-hook-victim-demands-donald-trump-disown-alex-jones-n685061?cid=sm_tw_msnbc

The daughter of a victim of the Sandy Hook mass shooting is calling on Donald Trump to disavow conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones, who said this week that Trump called to thank him for his support.

Jones has repeatedly and falsely claimed the Sandy Hook shooting was staged and that no one was killed.

Erica Lafferty lost her mother, school principal Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, in the shooting, which also claimed the lives of 20 children and five other adult at the Connecticut school.

"You've appeared on Jones' radio show, praised his 'amazing' reputation and promised him that you 'won't let him down,'" Lafferty said in a Medium post. "Now he's claiming you've personally called to thank him after the election, and will be on his show again soon. That's unacceptable."

Jones, has spread a variety of baseless conspiracy theories, including that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the government.

His site, Infowars, was a hub for pro-Trump and anti-Clinton conspiracies during the campaign and hosted Trump for an interview last year. Jones also attracted attention in the waning days of the campaign with a rant warning of a "Jewish mafia" out to "scam" Americans.

Trump's ties to fringe media have garnered more scrutiny in recent days with his appointment of former Breitbart president Steve Bannon, whose own site published a variety of inflammatory content, to a senior White House role.

"It's unacceptable," Lafferty wrote in the same post. "I'm asking you to denounce it immediately and cut ties with Alex Jones and anyone who subscribes to these dangerous ideas."

According to Jones, Trump called him after the election and said "We know what you did early on and throughout this campaign, stand up for what's right, it shows.'"

Trump's transition team did not respond earlier this week to requests to confirm or deny the claim by Jones this week that he called him after his election and also promised to return to show.

Trump's team also did not immediately respond to a follow-up email on Wednesday requesting comment on Lafferty's demand

I'm sure once Trump has finished lying on Twitter about musical theater he'll be right on that.

Be interesting to watch the mental gymnastics that, presumably, will follow for the infowars crowd now that Trump is POTUS.

One assumes he'll close down the FEMA death camps, cancel the chemtrail flights and so forth.

Then there'll be bit trials as those responsible are brought to justice for their terrible crimes.

Once he's finsihed meeting with Indian Real Estate people of course.

.. and calmed Pakistan down too.

 reds8n wrote:
One assumes he'll close down the FEMA death camps, cancel the chemtrail flights and so forth.

What about the ready-for-use UN concentration camps and armories? You know, for when the UN declares a one-world government, rolls out the tanks and rounds up all the true "liberty or death" Americans? We've been warned about this before by rifle-toting rednecks in pickup trucks but sadly the corrupt government has ignored it (no doubt because they've been set up for good jobs in the New World Order).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

It's not a critique, rational or not, of religion but a critique of a critique.

Which applies specifically to Religion, as per your context. Irrationality is a polar opposite of rationality, not a transcendant one. Sometimes, in trying to say something which makes a lot of sense, we say things that don't make any. That's fine, but you should not be too quick to jump to the defense of your envolées lyriques. Ineffability is rarely a good foundation.

 ender502 wrote:
In regards to dark age religion...It's dumb unless it actually worked. Which is something that neither you nor I can prove or disprove. We can certainly believe it didn't work but we have no proof that it did or didn't work. Just irrational belief. That's the problem with religious debates in general....we can't prove a point one way or another. In the end result we could all be wrong and Xenu is coming for us all with his flight of DC-10's.

All value driven discussions are hard to naviguate, not just those on Religion. But we are Moderns, or at least their children. We can no longer hide from the fact that all languages are logic-driven. The point is not weither or not it works, for all we care, it's never going to works, and that's how the Gods wired the world, as one big fething joke on us. The point is that judgement and rationality extends everywhere, that no object is beyond their reach, even if it can sometimes be well beyond their mastery. Irrational beleifs are the same.

 ender502 wrote:

My basic thesis is pretty simple. Religion, as an abstract, only exists as the confluence of an idea and action. The idea is not what offends. It is always the action part of the equation that causes trouble. That's the place to get pissed off. Not the idea.

ender502

Your thesis seems unsupported by the arguments provided. "Idea" is already enough of a hazy concept as is, I don't see what prevents them from seeding outrage in anyone. Anders Breivik's ideas are absolutely discusting, and I would happily (but illegaly) do violence to anyone seriously advocating them to my face. If the way you practice and live your religion is in anyway similar to that of that maniac, then it is perfectly righteous to hate the idea as well. But that's not Islam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

absolutely, I have met many a broncos fan for whom that team is far more important to them than their religion

Yes, I suppose it always helps to remind ourselves that so many people out there are just simple idiots.

As I said, sigh, language always takes a hit. Irrationality IS a logic driven word to define a thing without rationality. We must use imperfect words because it's what we happen to have.

I can see how one would hate the ideas that are put into practice and how that leaps to the idea (in this case religion but it could be liberalism or conservatism or whatever) itself. I just don't find that to b very reasonable.

People keep saying they can hate the idea. They keep saying it happens. I don't dispute that. What I am saying is that it doesn't seem rational to hate an irrational idea. Ideas don't hurt people. It's people that hurt people. Unless, that is we are actually moving to the liberal/conservative thought police where even our thoughts are enough to be a basis for someone elses hate and action?

ender502