[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The English language is full of words that can be used interchangeably with other words. You proved your point by listing a number of words that could have been used. “Cunt” is all-encompassing and succinct. As has been pointed out, there’s always some word that’s gonna piss someone off. The boards are full of foul language. We don’t single it out on any other subject matter. Why start with the baby jesus?
The point for me is that I can’t conduct myself noticably differently on a message board than I do IRL, because I have discovered I can’t react emotionally any differently on a message board than I do IRL. Maybe people can divorce the things that get said here as “only a Message Board,” but I can’t. I only have so much emotional capital to spend, and I’m not going to waste it being infuriated – especially at someone I don’t know, probably don’t respect, am unlikely to ever meet, and probably don’t even want to meet.
So I expect people who play with me to play nice, or I will take my ball and go home. That may in most cases be no great loss, but it’s what I have to do to protect myself, and I have the right to do it.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
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
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. I have no problem with the Muslims being OFFENDED over the cartoons. The appropriate way to handle the offense is to, I don’t know, boycott the papers that ran them, maybe? Refuse to read the paper yourself? Rioting in the streets is NOT the same thing as saying “hey, I don’t want to deal with a person who thinks it is OK to represent my religion that way.”
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Where does it end? How about with the application of some common sense? If you’re standing in front of the Republican convention, and you insult the President, you should not be surprised to find you have insulted your audience. If you’re standing outside the Australia Zoo insulting Steve Irwin, you should not be shocked to find people are angered.
And when you talk to Christians and you insult their deity in the grossest terms, you shouldn’t be amazed to find you’ve insulted them.
You want to stand on your right to be insulting, fine. Just spare me the argument that: (a) Christians are unreasonable to be insulted under such circumstances or (b) you had no idea they would be.
I don’t see BadChad as being a good debater at all. Few cites, etc. And, he’s a “one trick pony”- he only comes here to post on one subject and on that one subject he has only one opinion.* That Opinion seems to be that Christianity is wrong. He doesn’t tell us what he beleives- he just attacks your beliefs, and I have never seen him attack any other faith (except in a general way)- just Xtianity.
Sure, a lot of dudes here agree with that opinion, but also lot of dudes here agree with “Bush is an asshole”, however if that’s your only tune here you are generally called on it.
Over all, his contributions here are nearly nil- he’s not part of the community, all he ever does is: comes in beats his drum VERY VERY LOUDLY and not at all well, then leaves. If it wasn’t for the fact that many dudes here agree with his strong atheistic agenda- his rudeness would have gotten him warned, if not banned. (Did he get Polycarps permission to use Polys quote in his sig?)
He’s just not a good Board citizen. I never see him giving advice or help, congratulating others on their good fortune or commiserating on bad luck, or even cheering on a PITing. He has exactly one note, played on one instrument. Over and over and over. :rolleyes:
*In fact he reminds me of Ben. Whatever happened to him?
How mad? Mad enough to walk away from a discussion with someone who’s grossly insulting? What’s wrong with that?
I’m not marching in the streets, exhorting violence, calling for apologies, advocating the overthrow of a government, demanding the repeal of free speech. I’m not demanding that everyone else adapt my world view.
I’m not the kind to throw Maletov cocktails at the Atheist Embassy anyhow, which is a good thing since I’ve never been able to find it.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Dude…he called a DEAD GUY a cunt. Relax already. He didn’t break any rules.
[/QUOTE]
You must’ve missed the second sentence of mine, which you even quoted. To repeat, I don’t really care what badchad calls Jesus. I’m just saying that when he resorts to “Your god is a cunt!” he’s doing his side a disservice. That’s all.
Also, if I were concerned about his having broken any rules, I would’ve flagged the post, which I didn’t. I like to let people’s words stand.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Where does it end? How about with the application of some common sense? If you’re standing in front of the Republican convention, and you insult the President, you should not be surprised to find you have insulted your audience. If you’re standing outside the Australia Zoo insulting Steve Irwin, you should not be shocked to find people are angered.
[/QUOTE]
You are being pretty ridiculous. You are comparing a thread on Christianity in Great Debates to what, a church meeting?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
I’m not the kind to throw Maletov cocktails at the Atheist Embassy anyhow, which is a good thing since I’ve never been able to find it.
[/QUOTE]
Three blocks down, turn left, second right, fourth building on the east side of the street.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I think I spoke against FriarTed’s desire to see non-believers squirming at the foot of the Throne earlier in this thread, and I meant to do so in the originating discussions. If I was insufficiently vehement, let me add a little emphasis: It is unseemly, unchristlike, and crude to evince even an atom of joy at the notion of persons being cast into eternal hellfire. No God worthy of the name would sentence any of Her or His children to an infinitude of suffering for a finite amount of wrongdoing. If you feel glee at the prospect of any sinner, even Hitler, suffering such a fate, then you yourself are sinning, and you need to examine the mote in your own eye. Such statements do nothing but incite anger and disgust in others, and they are quite entitled to feel that way.
So? I feel quite certain that I could have a meaningful discussion with FriarTed or Revenant Threshold, both of whom I have substantial disagreements with on the subject, because neither is inclined to throw around inflammatory language for the sake of starting fires.
I am not contesting badchad’s position on the Bible. I believe many Christians are guilty of Bibliolatry, and I will not defend the many horrible accounts of murder, genocide, rape, and hatred in that book. I am criticizing badchad’s MANNERS.
[/QUOTE]
But why single out just threads about the baby jesus? Why not start a petition to outlaw all profanity from all threads? It sounds like the offended are offended because of who called who a cunt. Not that the word iself was used.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy. I have no problem with the Muslims being OFFENDED over the cartoons. The appropriate way to handle the offense is to, I don’t know, boycott the papers that ran them, maybe? Refuse to read the paper yourself? Rioting in the streets is NOT the same thing as saying “hey, I don’t want to deal with a person who thinks it is OK to represent my religion that way.”
[/QUOTE]
The degree of offense. I think it is a fair comparison, but I failed to include a sentence about it being a lesser degree of righteous offense. That is why, even if I thought it, I would not call any revered figure the C-word. I know it would be offensive, I just found Jodi’s post humorous.
I do not know **badchad **, what **DrDeth ** posted might be a better point than the Op’s. Now it sounds like he might well be describing someone who is a jerk. **Der Trihs ** takes a lot of heat for is very strong opinions, but he contributes to the boards well in other forum and is a good read. I usually defend him, when I am not debating him over the military.
However, is it not allowed to be a one-issue poster? We probably have many that just do not have a single issue that is so controversial.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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!
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can see where you’re coming from. On the other hand, I think that insults are generally becoming more gender-neutral. I’ve called men “bitch” and yesterday a friend of mine called me (in good humor) a bastard. To me, there’s a line between calling a man a cunt because, as you said, “the worst thing you can call a MALE person is a FEMALE body part” and calling a man a bitch because, well, he’s acting bitchy. Admittedly, that line is thin and often impossible to see because it relates to intent. In this case, I have no idea which side of the line badchad was one when he called Jesus a cunt.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] 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.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not irrelevant. If you use one word for two different meanings, and one of the two meanings is shot full of powerful emotional content, you’re engaged in a political act every time you use the word in its other context. Whether you intend it or not.
There was a furor an election-cycle or so ago when a political ad showed the word “DEMOCRATS” fading in onscreen in such a way that the word RATS was the visible part as the disparaged politicians’ faces showed onscreen. That’s a much much milder version of what I’m talking about (it’s not like Republicans had decided to use ‘Rats as a nickname in perpetuity for Democrats, it was one lousy ad), but it still got some folks’ undies in a twist.
The classic example would be the word “fuck”. I don’t fucking care if you want to fuck around with casual language and talk about what’s fucked up about in your life or you want to tell someone ‘dont fuck with me’ when they’re pushing it, but a problem occurs when you then ask me if my girlfriend is a good fuck or you point to a coworker I think is cute and attractive and ask if I want to fuck her. Because if you’re going to go around using a word to mean “mess around with uncaringly” and “destroy or ruin” and “do aggressive violence to”, then turn around and try to use the very same word to mean “get some erotic congress goin’ with”, it’s like you’re hurling sewage at sex.
Cunt is a female sexual organ. I don’t give a rat’s ass what your descriptive-not-prescriptive dictionaries may say about it also being a word meaning “disparaged person” or “a tiresome thing” or whatever, the fact remains that the word means the female vestibule, the female erotic parts. So when people go around hurling the word “Cunt!” as an expression of contempt and anger, they’re simultaneously throwing emotional sewage at females and female sexuality. Whether that’s their conscious attitude towards women or not.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
You are being pretty ridiculous. You are comparing a thread on Christianity in Great Debates to what, a church meeting?
[/QUOTE]
Huh? I’m comparing a thread in Great Debate that solicits the opinion of Christians or discusses Christianity, to a discussion that involves Christians. You thought maybe the responders would be Zoarastrians?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
I don’t see BadChad as being a good debater at all. Few cites, etc. And, he’s a “one trick pony”- he only comes here to post on one subject and on that one subject he has only one opinion.* That Opinion seems to be that Christianity is wrong. He doesn’t tell us what he beleives- he just attacks your beliefs, and I have never seen him attack any other faith (except in a general way)- just Xtianity.
[/quote]
Very good point and one I haven’t seen expressed yet.
Exactly. The true sign of a troll-badchad is only here to purposely offend people. Which he does, only not the way he intended. I don’t give a shit that he’s an atheist, or that he hates Christianity-I only find it annoying that he has to keep barging into threads with his, “ooooh, I’m soooo shocking and controversial-hey everybody, look at me!” schtick.
As someone said upthread, he’s like a kid who just learned how to swear and wants to see what he can get away with.
And Kalhoun, if you honestly think that saying, “Well, your diety is a cunt/twat/dick/shithead” blah blah blah is a valid argument, well, no comment.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
Skald is a boy. Just FYI.
[/QUOTE]
He doesn’t know that, dear, because he only comes to the Dope to stir up feces in GD. Anyone who spent a moment in CS or IMHO would know what a spectacularly immature specimen of masculinity I am.
::returns to ogling Anaamika through the keyhole::
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose that that might be on point if I had said anything remotely like that. I didn’t. What I said was that if the Bible were true, badchads’s philosophical pretensions were irrelevant. To carve a finer point on it, if the Bible is true, human moral constructs are meaningless. The Creator of the Universe gets to qualify right and wrong, by definition.
Then pit them for it. You do yourself a disservice by claiming, along with pseudotriton, that bad behavior in one thread excuses bad behavior in another.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re ironically pretending to have insight into me and what I don’t “get”. I don’t believe in souls, so if someone wants to say my soul will burn in Hell… so what? I declare that the invisible intangible gnomes in your home are buttfucking you nightly and putting pictures of it on their invisible intangible gnome Internet, where “gnomesbuttfuckpseudrotron.com” is among the most popular sites. It’s not debatable that this is really happening - it’s as unprovable as statements about God, souls Heaven and Hell. It’s a mistake to call it a “debate” instead of “witnessing” and it’s no great accomplishment on anyone’s part to be nasty about it.
So chad’s found inconsistencies in the bible? Well, let’s start organizing a celebratory DUH! parade in his honour. If he left it at that (and incidentally, I don’t think his ability to quote the bible is a sign of any knowledge greater than the ability to use any of several hundred online bible search archives - biblegateway.com is my personal favourite), no problem. His jerkishness is pittable, not his opinion and has been noted, being a jerk about Christians is pretty much all he does around here.
[QUOTE=The Weird One]
Yes, I can see where you’re coming from. On the other hand, I think that insults are generally becoming more gender-neutral. I’ve called men “bitch” and yesterday a friend of mine called me (in good humor) a bastard. To me, there’s a line between calling a man a cunt because, as you said, “the worst thing you can call a MALE person is a FEMALE body part” and calling a man a bitch because, well, he’s acting bitchy. Admittedly, that line is thin and often impossible to see because it relates to intent. In this case, I have no idea which side of the line badchad was one when he called Jesus a cunt.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting example you gave, because I also hate when men are called bitches. To me, it means he is being rude/obnoxious/whatever in a GIRLY or GAY way, not in a GUY way. I find this insulting to women & gays as well. I guess this is an area that just sets me off.
On the other hand, I can live with it when a guy calls a group of his friends “ladies” or “little girls” as a joke. Try to figure me out!
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
If they only way you know how to “debate” is to act like a troll, then it doesn’t say much for your skills. **Most people can get their points across without being an offensive shithead. **
I’m surprised badchad hasn’t been banned so far. Hell, at one point, I thought he WAS banned.
“Freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a PRIVATELY owned message board, either. **The rules in GD prohibit insults. ** And again, if you can’t get your point across without insults, then no, you’re not a “great debator”. You’re just a sad little troll.
Oh, and stop posting your stupid sig EVERY SINGLE POST, badchad!
[/QUOTE]
How is calling someone on the boards a shithead better than calling a dead guy a cunt? The rules prohibit insults. You can’t insult someone who doesn’t exist. No foul here.
