Hear, hear! The motion carries by acclamation.
I went away for awhile after I started typing my post, so this wasn’t there.
Never mind, I love simulposts. 
You know, I’m not sure why “religion is intrinsically evil,” as a poster puts it above, is not a valid viewpoint. No one’s saying you have to agree, but certainly, of all the viewpoints that one could put forth about religion, that one doesn’t seem so outré to me. And just putting it forward doesn’t qualify as anencephaly to me.
Do I find Der Trihs a bit extreme, a bit vitriolic? Of course. But he’s not really being pitted for that – he’s being pitted for the unpopularity of his opinions, which makes me a little squeamish.
Just in case, are you aware that Mr. **Clothahump ** is also anti-religion? He might be a conservative and pro-Bush, but he is not a Fundie Republican. From what I have seen, he is actually a nice person. He should probably stay away from political debates, as he does seem to fail on fact checking quite often.
Like Silenus, I have also notices **Der Trihs ** makes for fun conversation in the Cafe. Like almost everyone else, he has made many posts in other areas that make me roll my eyes in disgust.
Jim
Hey, what’s wrong with that? Afterwards they could merge and build a new religious site called McVatican. Over 4 billion saved!
Not exactly…I think he is being pitted for making outrageous statements that he makes no attempt to back up with any facts. His opinions are unpopular, true, but the problem people actually have with him is that his opinions are completely prejudiced. He doesn’t simply dislike religion, or hold that religion itself is evil, he believes that all people who are religious are evil. There is a huge, huge difference. If someone came on the board and made similar outrageous statements regarding blacks, there would be a pile-on the likes of which you have never seen, and rightly so. Would it make you equally squeamish to see someone being pitted for holding those kinds of opinions?
Der Trihs is perfectly within his rights to state any opinions he wants. But when he states those opinions in a public forum, he sets himself up to hear what people think of him for it.
Actually, it seems to me that most of the OP was pitting him for saying over and over that anyone that is opposed to abortion just hates women and wants them to die. When questioned on that point he simply repeated the same inanity over and over with nothing to back it up except for his own wild speculations.
It’s not that his viewpoint is unpopular, its that it’s wildly stupid and unsupported by any facts or rational thinking.
Yeah. The other stuff I can mostly at least relate to, given that Der Trihs and I are coming at this from the same basic political beliefs. But the idea that all right to lifers are misogynists who like to see women killed?
That goes beyond strongly felt beliefs right into Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion territory for me. I mean, it’s simply nutso.
I’ve never noticed him saying the US is evil - unless you consider the current bunch of morons in the White House the US. So, two trick.
Well, I don’t know how you could hold that religion is evil without holding that its practitioners are evil. How it seems to me is that Der Trihs is guilty of wielding the proverbial broad brush – which doesn’t really bother me, because I make allowances for it. After all, if somebody said to me “communism is evil” or “fascism is evil,” I wouldn’t bat an eye. I don’t think I’d bother to say, “Well, yes, but at least the fascists made the trains run on time,” or “I knew this one guy who was communist, and he was also a swell guy.”
Barring proof to the contrary, that’s how I take Der Trihs’ views. They’re not my views, and he overstates for dramatic effect, it seems to me – but I don’t seem them as being illegitimate or dim-witted.
What core belief? No one’s objecting to conservative Catholics saying they’re pro-life. The objection is to some priests saying Catholic politicians who think non-Catholics should follow their consciences should be refused Mass. Is that the core belief you’re talking about? Do you think it’s a good idea for a politician who is a member of a church to try to make the moral rules of that church the law?
So…a communist can’t be a swell guy? Seriously. A communist doesn’t necessarily have to admire Stalin or Castro, or believe that a murderous dictatorship is an intrinsic part of communism. Likewise, someone who is religious doesn’t have to admire people who do bad things the name of religion, or believe that these things are justified in the name of religion. See, Der Trihs takes the things he sees some religious people do (like terrorist acts or molesting children) and applies them to all religious people. ALL religious people are evil people who do things like commit terrorism and molest children. For instance, this is what he says about people who are against abortion:
Does this sound like a reasonable statement to make about ALL people who are against abortion? That goes way, way beyond the broad brush.
I believe cases like this can usually be explained by Freud’s musty old theory of projection: “A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
How many Freudian psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Two, one to hold the ladder and another to screw in the mother, I mean lightbulb.
No, that’s the very definition of the broad brush.
I don’t think that’s true. At least that’s not the interpretation I put on the phrase “broad brush”. I think of the “broad brush” as describing circumstances where a large group is unfairly described in terms of the misbehavior of a small group. If I ranted against, say, Christians because they’re trying to spread nonsense like Young Earth Creationism, that would be a broad brush - since most Christians don’t adhere to that ridiculous belief. I think this is a step beyond, since the idea that any pro-lifer wishes to strap women down on beds and gloat at them as they die is somewhat preposterous.
A broad brush is an overgeneralization - but Der Trihs isn’t generalizing here. He’s just making shit up.
You haven’t been following along very closely then. Its a rather consistant theme with the guy. In fact, I seem to recall that he said something to the effect of (to paraphrase…too lazy to look it up atm) ‘The American people re-elected (Bush)’, so they are evil as well. Something like that.
So, back to 3 tricks. Certainly he is rabidly anti-American (and I think he IS an American, ironically enough…or maybe not considering), rabidly anti-Religion and rabidly anti-Conservative (what HE thinks is ‘conservative’…by which I sometimes think he means ‘anyone not so far to the left as to be off the spectrum’ or ‘anyone who doesn’t agree with me’).
Myself, I generally just put in quotes some of the more batshit stuff these days with a brief rolley eyes and leave it at that. American’s love to torture and murder the helpless? :rolleyes: All Catholics/Christians are child rapers and woman haters? :rolleyes: All ‘conservatives’ are evil and in the pocket of big business? :rolleyes:
Works well, generally.
-XT
Excalibre, I’m not sold on your definition of broad brush, though you subsequently use the word “overgeneralization,” which I think fits here. But when you say he’s “making shit up,” I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s that he draws a different general conclusion – “religion is intrinsically evil,” perhaps – than you would from the same facts. That conclusion is an opinion, and it’s what people are objecting to. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why that opinion is so cretinous.
OK, then it’s the broadest brush I have ever heard or or imagined. 