[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
'Tis funny to see this Pitting, because I was thinking of starting a Pit thread headed “I like Bad Chad,” and inviting my fellow Dopers to take potshots at me for my tastes in posters.
Basically, I’m with Kalhoun and Beaucarnea: the man knows his shit, better than many of the more devout defenders of holy scripture, and is tenacious about defending his positions. He’s no more insulting than any of his adversaries, who feel free to claim (on the basis of just about nothing) that Bad Chad and his ilk will spend eternity as a roasted marshmellow or some such nonsense (like that’s not far worse than wishing death on someone?), and to assert that all the interference Christ-worship plays in our daily lives is somehow beneficial, instead of the tedious, time-wasting and liberty-destroying role it actually does play.
He’s clear, witty, determined, and he takes no guff from weak-minded worshipers of circular reasoning.
Mark this as a ballot for Bad Chad.
[/QUOTE]
Not usually my style, but score a “me too” with the above poster.
As for his debating prowess – if I may speak for him for a sec – I’d invite any Christian scholar on board to engage him on any aspect of his faith.
My money’s Badchad all the way. Easy money in fact.
So substitute the word “asshole” for example, for “cunt” and everything is OK? Perhaps Badchad is British, where the term “cunt” wouldn’t be in the top 10 list of offensive words, often “that cunt” is used as a substitute for “that person”. And are people still hung up on “bad” words in this day and age, and still get upset at what someone they don’t know said about them or someone they know or like or worship?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
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]
Huh? indeed. You compared it to addressing the Republican National convention or the Croc Hunter’s home zoo. You were just being hyberbolic then? Because ISTM the responders could have been anyone who had knowledge about Christian dogma; you thought maybe only Christians fall in that category?
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not about the rules, it’s about acting like a mature adult in a debate. Again, if you can’t make your point without being deliberately inflammatory-which is what badchad has so obviously set out to do, then how can you expect people to take you seriously?
CONTEXT is everything. If he called Jesus a cunt in a Pit thread about Christianity or Jesus or whatever, I doubt anyone would care.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
It’s not about the rules, it’s about acting like a mature adult in a debate. Again, if you can’t make your point without being deliberately inflammatory-which is what badchad has so obviously set out to do, then how can you expect people to take you seriously?
[/QUOTE]
Agreed, it is much better, but is what he is doing trolling. He is not doing drivebys, he is backing up his very strong and offensive opinions. We have posters that pretty much live in GD and tear people a new asshole regularly, they post calculate offensive replies just to get a rise out of a poster and then nitpick the post to death. Are they much different from badchad? Is he only a troll because he regularly offends the major religion of the US & Canada?
Apparently **Jodi ** and a few others at least would care.
[QUOTE=CarnalK]
Huh? indeed. You compared it to addressing the Republican National convention or the Croc Hunter’s home zoo. You were just being hyberbolic then? Because ISTM the responders could have been anyone who had knowledge about Christian dogma; you thought maybe only Christians fall in that category?
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but they are more likely to be Christians than Hindus or Muslims, right? Or did you think it would just be a bunch of atheists standing around speculating on what those stupid Christians believe and congratulating themselves on their superior intellect? There would be a higher percentage of people insulted by a slag on the President at a Republican convention. There would be a higher percentage of people offended at a slag on Steve Irwin in Australia. There would be a higher percentage of people offended at a slag on Christ in a discussion involving Christians. I don’t see what’s so hard about this. Again, all I said if if you (general you) want to stand by your right to be offensive, fine; just don’t pretend you don’t know that’s what you’re doing.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I used to feel the same way. But it’s used so often now, by both men and women, that the sting is beginning to subside. I’m still not comfortable enough with it to add it to my quiver of Daily Profanity-Laden Insults, but I have used it once or twice when I really want to hammer the message home.
So, for argument’s sake, let’s say that calling the baby jesus a cunt is really an insult to all women and we agree that we won’t use that word anymore. Suppose BadChad called him a goat-felching shitheel. Would that have been ok?
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
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.
[/quote]
Pure nonsense. There is nothing inherently illogical about the statement “God is evil”. Assuming he was real, God could be evil, or amoral or insane; creating a universe doesn’t mean anything except that he can create a universe.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
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]
You assume that I consider insulting people’s beliefs to be bad behavior, or that it requires an excuse in the first place.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the accurate recollection! Except that I’m not sure Eternal Bliss is guaranteed to ensue, what with free will & all.
So, to make myself look worse, I do believe that IF in spite of Big G’s Compassion to those Stupid Little C***s, they persist in screaming defiantly against Him, it may well be He’ll leave them to wallow in their pee-puddles till they drown in them & cease to exist, OR EVEN WORSE, He’ll get them into an Eternal Big-Daddy Bear Hug that’ll make’em scream “Nooo! It burnses! It burnses! My precioussssss!” (The latter being a fanciful description of the Eastern Orthodox view.)
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
It’s not about the rules, it’s about acting like a mature adult in a debate. Again, if you can’t make your point without being deliberately inflammatory-which is what badchad has so obviously set out to do, then how can you expect people to take you seriously?
CONTEXT is everything. If he called Jesus a cunt in a Pit thread about Christianity or Jesus or whatever, I doubt anyone would care.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what I was thinking. I really get turned off by name-calling in GD. It usually means the person is out of ideas and is left only with ad hominem attacks. Jesis is a shithead or Jesus is retard or Jesus is a poopypants is just as :rolleyes: in my book as Jesus is a cunt. Keep that crap in the Pit where it belongs.
I haven’t encountered **BadChad **recently, but I do remember him being a jerkish troll when he first started posting on this board. Count me in with the other atheists who cringe when someone just wants to insult religious people and stir up shit in religious threads. There are a number of atheist or agnostic posters on this board who have no problem making positive contributions to those threads.
[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]
You’re not looking at it from the non-believer’s perspective. You’re worshipping someone who many believe to be inherently evil. I don’t care what your feelings are about him. They are in direct opposition to mine. It’s a debate. Biblical cites have been provided to back up the non-believer’s point. If it was someone you hated (i.e, Hitler, Hussein, Carrot Top), wouldn’t have offended you. It most certainly would have offended Nazis, some Iraqis, and a few five-year-olds. It was a colorful choice of words. People need to decide if they’re offended by CUNT or by JESUS as CUNT. If it’s just CUNT, I’m sure another word or phrase can be inserted.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Apparently **Jodi ** and a few others at least would care.
[/QUOTE]
In the Pit? Nah. I wasn’t even all that offended by it in GD – considering the source – except that I felt it was so transparently intentionally insulting and counterproductive to civil debate. As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s hard enough to have civil discussions in this area, when at least some people in the first group genuinely believe the second group has a moral failing, and at least some people in the second group genuinely believe the first group is stupid. But considering the source, I felt it was par for the course: a paper bag of burning shit thrown into a conversation in order to derail it and/or to force some participants out of the room. I wasn’t personally offended; I don’t pay any attention to anything he says. I did feel the forum was inappropriate, though I didn’t bother to say anything about it.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
I used to feel the same way. But it’s used so often now, by both men and women, that the sting is beginning to subside. I’m still not comfortable enough with it to add it to my quiver of Daily Profanity-Laden Insults, but I have used it once or twice when I really want to hammer the message home.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I am incredibly sheltered, but the only place I EVER hear or see this word is on the SDMB. Not that I have never heard of it before, but the people I come across in everyday life do not use it.
Whatever. I tend to gloss over most of this type of language, although I really don’t see the point of using it…if you have a valid point to be made, and can back it up, then why use language that makes you sound like a middle-schooler trying to show off with his friends? I don’t think it’s the best way to get people to respect what you have to say. But as I said, it wasn’t the fact that Jesus was being insulted that upset me. I just really, really find that particular word obnoxious and uncalled for.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Pure nonsense. There is nothing inherently illogical about the statement “God is evil”. Assuming he was real, God could be evil, or amoral or insane; creating a universe doesn’t mean anything except that he can create a universe.
[/QUOTE]
I did not say “illogical.” I said “irrelevant.” Perhaps ‘alogical’, or ‘arational’ would be better. He who controls reality calls the shots. You would have to demonstrate that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ apply to God before asserting one or the other.
You used it as an excuse. Your motivations, admittedly, are unknown to me.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Pure nonsense. There is nothing inherently illogical about the statement “God is evil”. Assuming he was real, God could be evil, or amoral or insane; creating a universe doesn’t mean anything except that he can create a universe.
[/QUOTE]
Except that the bible postulates more than just “God created the universe”. If the bible is true, then God is not evil. The Bible says that God is good. Are you postulating that good = evil? That is nonsense.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Suppose BadChad called [Jesus] a goat-felching shitheel. Would that have been ok?
[/QUOTE]
You really don’t seem to get this, do you? It’s fine for badchad to call Jesus whatever he wants, so long as the mods don’t have a problem with it. It’s just that it doesn’t advance his side of the debate. If he’s okay with it, then I am also.
[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]
Excellent analogy. Add to that the uproar about the Pope quoting some old writings about muslims. And don’t tell me he didn’t mean it…at least a little bit.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You’re not looking at it from the non-believer’s perspective. You’re worshipping someone who many believe to be inherently evil. I don’t care what your feelings are about him. They are in direct opposition to mine. It’s a debate. Biblical cites have been provided to back up the non-believer’s point. If it was someone you hated (i.e, Hitler, Hussein, Carrot Top), wouldn’t have offended you. It most certainly would have offended Nazis, some Iraqis, and a few five-year-olds. It was a colorful choice of words. People need to decide if they’re offended by CUNT or by JESUS as CUNT. If it’s just CUNT, I’m sure another word or phrase can be inserted.
[/QUOTE]
And you’re not looking at it from a believer’s perspective. It is NOT a debate when one side is being intentionally insulting. Your position is pretty well summed up by “I don’t care what your feeling are about him.” Fine. Then don’t expect me to talk about the subject with you, that’s all. If there was something you cared deeply about and I knew it or could assume it, like your own dear mama, I wouldn’t call her a cunt in a “debate” with you even if I thought she was evil incarnate. Not if I expected you to continue to talk to me, that is. And that’s my point: I don’t think BADCHAD does expect anyone with an opposing POV to continue to talk to him; in fact, that’s why I think he does it.
Please, pretty please, attribute quote when you’re using them. It might be clear to the person you’re debating, but to us more casual readers, it’s almost impossible to follow when the thread is moving as fast as it is, especially when you snip.