If someone said this about me, I think I’d be compelled to use it as my sig line.
Nicely done, Malacandra.
I’ll take it one step further. In HS I dated a girl that had a dog that ate his own shit. I know it’s not uncommon in some breeds (he was, ironically, a Shit-Tzu), but it was still eerily weird.
That little guy would shit it out and just scarf it down. But I think even he would be able to sense that a Der Trihs post was nothing to go near. Your analogy is almost an insult to dogshit.
Though I guess I am mostly on the same side and in agreement with Der Trihs’ arguments I found this
to be far too close to Hate Speech.
Ummm . . . That happens to be the one Trihs post I actually agree with.
In other words, how long would it take before someone was banned if they said
“The democratic party is intolerant, socialist and infested with homosexuals and their apologists.” in GD without a cite or provocation.
(Provided he’s talking about the Catholic church, that is)
Well, then you’re half wrong. The Church leans right, and it can be intolerant, but it’s certainly not ‘infested’ with pedophiles – given that most of the molestation cases were 20+ years old, if anything it was infested, but I don’t think even that can be shown – and most importantly, VIETNAM WAS NOT A LONG TIME AGO. Holy Christ! Thirty one years! A long time?! Oh, my sweet, sweet Jesus, help me believe in you again so I can pray to you for this lad’s brain, forget his soul.
Unless he meant something else, of course. I better go stick my head in a bucket before I short something.
Banned? I doubt it. I’m sure the poster would get lectured on what socialism really means, and how democrats are nowhere close to being socialists, and how yup, gay people are welcome, and how odd it is to accuse someone of being intolerant and tolerant in the same breath.
Now, as for the quote, I’d say “infested” is a bit strong, and it was more a coverup and anyone apologizing for them. But it’s a different church from when JFK ran. You realize that a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry came from the assumption that Catholic politicians would take orders from the Vatican and from Cardinals? That this is what they’re doing today is going to bite them in the butt some day.
Doesn’t matter. It still fires up the base. But I can now at least know the predjudice held against me by some (not you) for being Catholic. I love how I’m expected to forego a core beleif because someone has a blind hatred towards a group of people.
I guess bigotry and hate is protected by those decrying it so long as it’s a Catholic. :rolleyes:
The Catholics are not now, nor have they ever been, in the forefront of the religious movement, unless Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell converted and I just didn’t notice.
Hell, Catholics are scarcely even wanted in the Protestant-led religious movement. There’s a goodly portion of the “Religious Right” that doesn’t even consider Roman Catholicism to be Christian.
Slight hijack:
When other critics and I use the word “church”, we’re not referring to the laypeople but to the administration, begining with the priests who either committed the crimes progressing to their bosses who swept the problem under the rug, transferring the priests to another parish instead of reporting them and further up the ladder–and from what the news has reported, this problem went pretty fucking far up the ladder.
I might hate a group of people within the church adminstration, duffer, but it’s not all-inclusive and it’s certainly not blind. I live in Boston, and when the scandal broke, we were amazed about how far the coverups went.
As far as my feelings toward the laypeople? Well, I don’t hate them. Why would I hate them? They didn’t commit these acts of pedophelia, and I have no reason to suspect that they knew about them, but didn’t act. Of course, when I see the laypeople in question on TV crying about how the Cardinal closed their parish to pay reparations to another victim of abuse, and how they’re praying to God so that He might reopen the parish with a miracle or something, I have to ask myself whether or not they comprehend the full magnitude of the Catholic church’s fuck-up here. I mean, I’m no longer Catholic, but if I were, I’d be praying to God not to start striking the existing churches with plagues and fire in order to avenge Himself against the outrages of the clergy who betrayed His lambs. I wouldn’t be crying about closed churches. But it’s up to them, I suppose.
Personally, if the Boston abuse scandal led to worldwide ramifications, and the Vatican itself were bankrupted, I wouldn’t shed a tear. But I don’t hold it against the worshippers themselves.
We now return you to the regular Trihs bashing.
Lone voice in the wilderness, check. He’s the only one who really knows what’s going on, check. Working his fixated hatred of that one aspect of humanity into every thread he posts in, check . . . We’re talking major Internucklehead here . . .
Hey, now, that’s not fair.
Der Trihs isn’t a one-trick pony. He’s got plenty of room for both religion and the current US junta, too.
Of course, I’ve always felt myself going “mmm, yeah, preach it, Brother” to most of his rants, so what do I know.
No, he’s a three-trick pony: religion is evil, the United States is evil, conservatives are evil.
All three tricks get old in a hurry when they’re pursued with bigotry and hate. The guy makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.
I don’t get why people keep responding to him. When he posts one of his over-the-top outbursts, why not just chuckle and move on. He’s not a troll, he’s just an obsessive with a very black and white view of the world that he sees as common sense. You won’t be able to reason with him, you’re either with him or against him. So why bother banging your head against a wall.
Well, as I said I’m fairly new and still sorting out the crazies from the bunch. I really need to make a list or something…
I just wish he’d come out and say what he’s thinking. I read his posts over and over and I just can’t figure out where he stands on organized religion.
59,554 to go then.
This is true, and it is even more sad because I agree, in principle, with many of his beliefs. I too am an atheist (though I do not consider religion to be intrisically evil, as I believe Der Trihs has stated), pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, socialist-leaning (etc., etc.). If I were to meet Der Trihs, I feel we would find much to agree on.
Yet by persistently mixing his legimate points of view with malicious conspiracy-theory bullshit presented as fact, and immediatly adopting a confrontational, nay abusive tone the moment one of his hot buttons is mentioned, and for that matter by dragging any thread he can into a debate on one of those same “hot-button” topics, Der Trihs demeans both those who share his position and himself. It is impossible to have a debate with him, and difficult to have any sort of reasonable interchange. A fanatic has been defined as one who “Can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” I humbly submit that Der Trihs is a fanatic, and had he been raised in a different belief structure, might be just as vociferous in the advocation of witch-burning or slavery.
Thus, I wish to state, once and for all, on behalf of all those who find common ground with one of Trih’s ideological leanings, or those who simply enjoy reasoned argument, on any topic:
This man does not represent us.
Oh, and bets on how long it will take before Der Trihs appears in this thread and starts saying that he knows he’s doing something right because he’s pissed this many people off?
Mind you, I’d blush with pleasure if I got a pitting this vitriolic from, say, Clothahump (just to remind everyone that we here at the SDMB got loonies on both ends of the political spectrum)!
He’s a reminder that people on the left can be just as bad as the ones on the right. He’s like the counterpart to Clothahump.
Blowing up Mecca and the Vatican? Sounds like a would-be terrorist.