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.
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.”
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.
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.
You are being pretty ridiculous. You are comparing a thread on Christianity in Great Debates to what, a church meeting?
Three blocks down, turn left, second right, fourth building on the east side of the street.
Small tasteful sign out front.
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.
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.
Jim
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.
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.
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?
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.
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::
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.
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.
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! 
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.