RE: badchad’s use of the word “cunt” to describe Jesus Christ
Calling anyone a cunt is flaming language and belongs in the Pit. All he’s going to do is stunt the growth of any thread in which he says it, as it puts people on the defensive and is not conducive to useful debate. badchad knows this, which means that he is not interested in debate. He wants to flame. If that’s the case, he should open a Pit thread and go nuts.
If he wants civilized debate, he needs to act civilized.
I’m sorry but if the bible is true then Jesus is a cunt. Them’s the facts.
I’m an atheist. badchad’s a jerk, like the aggresive twerp in the bar who throws out insults and adds a “truth hurts, doesn’t it?” when he get the hostile response he was obviously trolling for.
I want to jump in here to say that I am not so much offended as a Christian by the use of the word “cunt” in this situation, but I am very much offended as a woman. People who use this word in any context tend to lose my respect pretty fast. If you can’t find a better way to express your dislike of someone than that, then I figure you probably don’t have too much of interest to say, anyway.
I don’t even think the Op is all that great. You know of five year olds that have learned and use the F-word?
You linked **badchad’s ** offensive post and derided him for thread-shitting, and yet in the same thread, before that post he had a prior post explaining his position better and he followed it up with his reasons for why he called Jesus such an insulting term.
I do not agree with him, for his day, Jesus was far more tolerant than most known religious figures, but I support his right to say what he said, as he did back it up and did not just disappear after posting it.
I avoid most of the religious threads, but **badchad ** seems to argue his points very well and occasionally gives in to his anger at the hypocrisy that is organize religion. He should probably avoid use of the C-word if he wants more posters to listen to his points and not just get angry.
Another ballot for **badchad. **
Jim
I guess you don’t get it that believers have already poisoned the well of civil debate by pretending to have insight into the eternal disposal of atheists’ souls, and so Badchad is simply obeying the gutter-level standard of namecalling and bad-faith argumention of the debate(s) already in progress.
What, you expect him to be polite and decorous with people who are tossing off gross insults to him, and his intelligence? Why should he?
Really?
This in GD (specifically, here.)
I guess in addition to disagreeing as to what is offensive, we disagree as to what constitutes civility. I would be very surprised if anyone could locate a single thread discussing religion in which he has failed to be notably uncivil. In fact, his bad behavior is so inevitable and overt that I assume it’s an intentional tactic to make sure that people with the skill to effectively refute him will be too offended to bother. And you’ve got to give him credit, as a tactic it’s crude yet effective.
Think what you like, man.
I still maintain that GD is supposed to be a place for civilized debate, and that the use of “cunt” in any context is anything but civilized.
As an atheist, I agree completely with this pitting, Skald. (But then again, I’m an atheist who strongly believes that religion is a natural force in humans, and that most religions in the world, whatever their holy books say, can be and are used for good.)
I also find his signature smug and condescending. Polycarp is one of my favourite posters here, and I think he does a very good job at finding a progressive message in Christianity. I don’t know what was the context of his quote (badchad doesn’t link to the appropriate thread), but I can see why Polycarp said such a thing: to retain the progressive message in the Bible, he must be ready to throw away what contradicts it, or explain why it doesn’t apply. I mean, everyone trying to find a good moral guide into a 2000-year old book will have to do that. But badchad clearly uses it to attack liberal Christians as not following the tenets of their religions, while in fact a religion is nothing but what its followers do.
His position against Christianity is one that several posters have against Islam (there is in fact a thread about this going right now), and I think it’s just as wrong in that case.
Frankly, I don’t see how badchad’s intense dislike of Christianity can lead him to believe that Jesus Christ himself was a “cunt”. That’s a more personal attack, that can only be a comment on the man’s own behaviour. He’s entitled to this opinion, but many will disagree. I believe that if Jesus existed, and if the Biblical account is true – this last hypothesis isn’t obvious – he was a man of his times, but one that did good things.
Oh, and badchad: Skald is a “he”.
Actually, if the Bibe is true, Jesus is the Son of God, Creator of the universe, and quite outside and apart from your philosophical pretensions. Of course, you did not add that quailifier in the referenced post. Were you assuming the Bible to be true, then?
If the Bible is not true, then the Jesus as portrayed in it quite probably did not exist, so your calling him a cunt seems a bit pointless.
There is no excuse for bad manners.
He admitted as much in post 39 of this thread.
Oh, come on.
I mean, it’s not like he called someone a cunt to their face. It’s his opinion. You’re being overly sensitive.
Why don’t you tell us what words he’s allowed to use to describe an imaginary deity. No one has answered that question yet.
Since he has extensive knowledge of the bible and generally wins arguments when engaged, wouldn’t a better simile be like the tough guy at the bar who shouts at the crazy drunk at the other end?
How does “Jesus was a fuck face” grab you?
I mostly agree with kalhoun’s post 38.
badchad (IMHO) acts antagonistic in order to force people to bring up their most devastating counter-attack. That it usually consists of “You’re a big jerk, I’m not going to even come up with a counter argument” speaks volumes. We are so trained to tip toe around religous topics that actually pursuing the “you’re being irrational” point is seen as rude. I mostly agree with kalhoun’s post 38.
I am not an atheist, and I just went what felt like 12 rounds in this thread. I think I was still standing at the end, but it was no picnic in the park.
My only complaint about badchad is that he goes into a religion-centered debate to win. Is that a bad thing in a forum called “Great Debates”? He fights mean and there are no holds barred — not generally disparaged traits when one trying to win in competition, yes?
I suppose I prefer that “Great Debates” be places where opinionated people toe off against each other but where the process causes them to learn about and understand each other’s beliefs and perspectives better, and where the lurkers and occasional-posters reading along can benefit from all the arrayed perspectives. It has been my general experience that GD participants who only play to win and to beat their opponents in debate tend to turn threads into 2-person back-and-forths that, after awhile, everyone else quits reading.
But there isn’t exactly board consensus on that or anything. Lots of folks in here go into debates only to win. BadChad isn’t the first or the only. And gotta give him credit, his claims are cited. To box his assertions, you’re going to have to go after the root axioms on which they operate, make any of the implicit ones overt, and then find what, if anything, is in your opinion genuinely wrong with his line of thought. It’s often going to make you really think.
That’s more fun with someone who finds that stimulating in turn than with someone who is only trying to land a knockout post on the jaw of your perspective, so to speak, but it seems within the bounds of the spirit of GD to play for keeps.
Why not an actual descriptive term? If he finds Jesus to be a bad person, say bad. How about bloodthirsty, or murderous, or even just evil? I don’t know badchad’s opinions enough to suggest specific words he could use.
The problem with using cunt is that it is just an insult. Look at your definitions; what’s wrong with “despicable person”? Answer; despicable isn’t insulting enough for badchad’s taste, even if it would accurately sum up his opinion.
No one will. He’s allowed to call Jesus anything he want. In GD, he’s allowed to behave anyway he wants, subject to moderator approval.
His cause would be better served if he would restrict himself to language that, if he used it in the presence of my mother, would not result in an invitation to meet outside.
It’s got nothing to do with who he called a cunt and everything to do with where he called someone a cunt. His opinion of Jesus really doesn’t bother me.
Are you saying that certain terms are forbidden under any circumstances in GD? Or are you junior-modding, and rather selectively too?
Not forbidden, per se, just bad form.
Overall I am agreeing with you, but it would be better in most forums not to debate with the Cunt word as a descriptor. His point could be better made by avoiding words that will only make some posters see red. I do not agree with **badchad’s ** characterization, but then he knows far more about the bible than I do and a well composed series of post my convince me of his position. Tossing various offensive words out in the middle of a debate, is not a particularly good way to get people to treat you seriously.
pseudotriton ruber ruber: What **Guin ** said.
Jim