BadChad, a moment of your time, if you can spare it

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I get that some people don’t think spirited debate should take certain forms, but

  1. there’s really no more horrible assertion you could make than that atheists will (or even may) suffer ever-lasting punishment for their lack of beliefs

[/quote]

Hmm, who was it who said that? Because it wasn’t, you know, me.

I didn’t say that either.

Oh, that WAS me who criticized the notion of eternal punishment in flames & torment & being eaten by worms, though.

I won’t be doing either.

82

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yes, I do. I would never use that word.
[/QUOTE]
I should modify this. I would never use the word, but I guess the question is more about my reaction to others using it. I tend to give a big :rolleyes: to that type of language in general. I think most people here are intelligent enough not to rely on tacky language to get their point across, and it irritates me to see it. However, I do not feel that “dick” is as egregious an insult as “cunt.” This is actually why the word “cunt” bothers me so much…it’s because in our culture it is pretty much the worst insult someone can give, and it’s a FEMALE body part. Why IS it that “dick” doesn’t pack the same punch as “cunt?” IMO, it is because one refers to a male part, and one refers to a female part.

83

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I get that some people don’t think spirited debate should take certain forms, but

  1. there’s really no more horrible assertion you could make than that atheists will (or even may) suffer ever-lasting punishment for their lack of beliefs, or even that you know that atheists are any less moral or ethical than believers

  2. the people condemning Badchad for indecorous debating form don’t think to chastise his adversaries for being far more offensive than he is. personally, I’d much rather be called a cunt than to be told that you are certain that I am inferior to you on the basis of a text whose authority it is I’m questioning. It’s a text of dubious authority that has caused much harm, and as a freethinking human I’m offended by its very existence. If you discuss religion wihtout making any a priori assumptions about Biblical or Christian claim to morality, I’ve got no problem treating you with perfect civility. But as soon as you pull out your big guns and aim them at me, civility goes out the window.
    [/QUOTE]

I am not saying he not allowed to say it, I am just saying it actually lessens his point and he does his own excellent debate a disservice.
If someone told me I was going to burn in Hell, I would probably reply with something useless, depending on what I feel at the time:

  1. So what.
  2. FU too.
  3. Are you representative of those that will be in Heaven? If so I’ll take my chances on the other possible locations.
  4. When I die and my body decomposes I have no idea where my Id is heading or if it heads anywhere, for you to claim otherwise shows a deep level of self induce ignorance. What does a soul weigh? Can you provide any proof of its existence? By any chance do you even know what language your Bible was translated from?

Jim

84

See, I’m willing to work with someone who can’t form a clear position on what they’re saying. Not everyone is equally articulate. If I can figure out what you’re trying to say, and you agree with my construction, I’m willing to debate. I’m not willing to stand in a shitstorm to do it.

To me, arguing with people who are intentionally offensive is like arguing with a monkey who flings poo at you. Sure, you can stand there and do it, but why?

85

Jodi, you are absolutely right, you are fully within your rights to be offended, and even respond in kind or not.

on further reflection, I think my “rant” against you was totally out of line, so I apologize. My intent was to simply drain the word “cunt” of its mystique and power, but I suppose that is an utterly foolheardy exercise. Me definitely bite off more than me can chew.

Sorry Jodi.

86

[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
We have a cause? Do we have an agenda? Can I subscribe to a newsletter, are there meetings? “Hi, I’m Charlie Tan and I’m an atheist!”
[/QUOTE]

All together now: “Hiii, Charlie Tan .” Welcome. In today’s meeting we are discussing the merits of rational debate with an irrational army. Please bear in mind that while many Christians are excited by the opportunity to play persecuted martyrs- some are easily offended. Todays first order of business is to form an apology for our collective bad manners while pretending that our eternal souls are not damned.

Any ideas?

87

[QUOTE=mrrealtime]
Jodi, yes you…get OVER yourself. You got called a cunt. Its a small price to pay for freedom of speech, and you will not suffer any permanent damage(its actually up to you)
[/QUOTE]
Actually, being pitted is badchad’s price to pay for freedom of speech. Sure, he can say what he wants, but there’s no law of the universe that says that people won’t react to it in whatever way they want. Some may choose to ignore him, some may insult him back, some may pit him, some may not care at all. Free speech means the GOVERNMENT may not limit our speech. What your peers do on a message board is up to them.

88

[QUOTE=severus]
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”.
[/QUOTE]

All I can say is that we’re allowed to use profanity in a debate if it’s not directly aimed at another poster. It’s been done a million times. Sarafeena is offended by the word from a female perspective, and that’s fine…it wasn’t used in that way, so it’s irrelevant. I used it against a poster (in the pit) once and I’ll not apologize for it. She had it coming.

The fact that so many of you are getting up in arms about an insult that was tossed at a guy who died over 2000 years ago – and whose connection to god has been hotly debated for just as long – is quite amusing. You really shouldn’t take this personally. He didn’t call YOU cunts.

89

To be fair to FriarTed, ISTR that the pant-peeing business had to do not with atheists per se but those blowhards who like to fantasise about confronting the Big G and kicking Him in the nuts. I also remember FriarTed painting the scenario such that, after the inevitable pant-wetting, Big G large-heartedly forgives the foolish braggarts and eternal bliss does after all ensue.

90

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, if Jesus really was the son of God, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t an evil/disgusting/whatever person; that’s like claiming “You can’t call Ivan a cunt ! He’s the son of Stalin !”. Going by the Bible, God is a monster; to the extent Jesus took after him, Jesus would be a monster as well.

Me, I don’t use the word “cunt” because I don’t like using female body parts as insults; it seems like an insult to the gender as much as it is to whatever I am nominally insulting. And no, I don’t call people “pussies” or “pricks” either.

If nothing else, implying that sexual body parts = bad is unpleasantly Christian. If I want to call someone a really bad person, I’ll just call them a monster or vermin instead.

As far as the larger issue of being insulting while discussing religion goes, I’ll say this. I, and apparently badchad, honestly look upon Christianity as evil, stupid, and/or crazy. I can’t really say that to people who believe it without being insulting, and I feel no obligation to respect stupid or vile beliefs. Nor do I expect to convince anyone; if people weren’t beyind reason on the subject of religion, they wouldn’t be religious in the first place. Since people won’t be convinced, there’s not much point in trying not to offend them by being being polite about beliefs I feel contempt for. I talk about religion here mainly to vent, because it’s not safe to do so face to face.

Besides, as others have pointed out, it’s not like religious people don’t fling around threats of hell, or condescend and smirk all the time.

91

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yes, I do. I would never use that word.
[/QUOTE]
Cool. I’ve just run across a number of women who take offense at the word “cunt” because they feel that female genitalia is being singled out for use as an insult. I respect that you’re consistently opposed to genital-based insults.

92

[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Dude…he called a DEAD GUY a cunt. Relax already. He didn’t break any rules.

93

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
All I can say is that we’re allowed to use profanity in a debate if it’s not directly aimed at another poster. It’s been done a million times. Sarafeena is offended by the word from a female perspective, and that’s fine…it wasn’t used in that way, so it’s irrelevant. I used it against a poster (in the pit) once and I’ll not apologize for it. She had it coming.

The fact that so many of you are getting up in arms about an insult that was tossed at a guy who died over 2000 years ago – and whose connection to god has been hotly debated for just as long – is quite amusing. You really shouldn’t take this personally. He didn’t call YOU cunts.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the thing…I don’t think that the female perspective on this can EVER be irrelevant. Think about it…the worst thing you can call a MALE person is a FEMALE body part? What is this supposed to say about women in general? As I said, I am not offended that he called JESUS this so much as I am offended that ANYONE gets called this because it is the worst possible thing one can think of to call someone. That is so offensive to me it just makes me crazy.

94

[QUOTE=badchad]
Scald is only pitting me because she knows if she tried to debate me rationally I’d chop her up. My response to her in the thread she links in the OP was a bit sarcastic but hardly inflammatory. I guess that’s hard to take when the jokes on you and you have no response.
[/QUOTE]

Skald is a boy. Just FYI.

95

[QUOTE=The Weird One]
Cool. I’ve just run across a number of women who take offense at the word “cunt” because they feel that female genitalia is being singled out for use as an insult. I respect that you’re consistently opposed to genital-based insults.
[/QUOTE]
ACK! You will have to read my second post, and then you won’t think I’m so cool. Or, maybe you will understand where I’m coming from on this. I hope so! :slight_smile:

96

[QUOTE=Jodi]
Certainly I know the effect it has on me, and it’s not to marshal my resources for a point-by-point rebuttal. I don’t debate with people who cannot be civil. Period. Not on the Boards, not IRL. To infer from a refusal to debate an inability to debate strikes me as tenuous and, in badchad’s case, self-serving.
<snip>
I agree that his behavior and people’s reactions do speak volumes; we obviously disagree as to what it speaks volumes about.
[/QUOTE]

Your delicate sensibilities make sense in person, I don’t really see the point on a message board. And as tenuous as my inference may be it would be odd if everyone here on a debate board felt as you do, so someone should have given him some kind of solid argument. Doesn’t seem to be the case.

While he may be, horror of horrors, uncivil, badchad makes clear persuasive points and backs them up with cites. Unlike Guinastasia, who just likes to add her twigs to pile-ons.

97

You know what? I don’t really believe that you don’t understand why people would be offended to have their Deity called a word they would be offended to have applied to themselves. You would have to be really, really dense not to at least see that – regardless of whether you agree with it or not – and you’ve never struck me as stupid.

98

You know what? I don’t really believe that you don’t understand why people would be offended to have their Deity called a word they would be offended to have applied to themselves. You would have to be really, really dense not to at least see that – regardless of whether you agree with it or not – and you’ve never struck me as stupid.

To Christians, Jesus is far more than a DEAD GUY, and surely you know that. It isn’t really intellectually honest of you to apply your own sensibilities to the question of whether they are likely to be offended, when you know full well they do not share your opinions or your sensibilities.

99

[QUOTE=Jodi]
You know what? I don’t really believe that you don’t understand why people would be offended to have their Deity called a word they would be offended to have applied to themselves. You would have to be really, really dense not to at least see that – regardless of whether you agree with it or not – and you’ve never struck me as stupid.
[/QUOTE]

People take it personal when you insult the President of the United States or the Crocodile Hunter. Where does it end??? Those poor Dixie Chicks. :frowning:

100

[QUOTE=Jodi]
You know what? I don’t really believe that you don’t understand why people would be offended to have their Deity called a word they would be offended to have applied to themselves. You would have to be really, really dense not to at least see that – regardless of whether you agree with it or not – and you’ve never struck me as stupid.
[/QUOTE]

Hard to read your post and not laugh at it. Different world view and all. I find it hard to understand getting that tied to a concept that you would get that mad. It puts them in the same category as the Muslims who get decried for rioting over Danish Cartoons.

Jim