That opinion is not cretinous - it’s a mere opinion. A value judgment like “good” or “evil” is not very easily subject to objective evaluation. He’s entitled to that opinion, and I, likewise, and entitled to think it’s narrowminded and shows a certain selective attention to reality.
On the other hand, look again at the quotes Malacandra provided regarding abortion. If you don’t think that any pro-lifers wish to strap women to beds and gloat as they die, then I think that counts as more than “overgeneralization” - what’s he generalizing from? In fact, I’m inclined to agree with him that there is a real misogynist streak in the pro-life community, though I don’t believe it’s universal. However, the comment he made goes beyond hyperbole into the realm of the sheerly ridiculous.
I have little to add to this pile-on other than complete agreement. While I am sort of a “fundamentalist” Christian, I can acknowledge that some reasonable people could think that religion is a scourge upon the Earth. I couldn’t disagree more strenuously, but again, reasonabe people can hold that opinion and argue it logically. Unfortunately for us, Der Trihs is not a reasonable person. He is what I like to call “an asshole.”
Additionally, his sig. line:
I should have mentioned that I agree with this. But to me these are not pittable offenses. I continue to think that his big crime is holding unpopular opinions – or to put it more exactly, extreme versions of the opinions held by no small number of us, including me.
You’re not asking me, but personally I don’t understand how someone with religious beliefs can serve secularly and resolve the differences between what’s moral and legal. Even if the constituents are not of the same religion, there is still some sense of scandal in endorsing something secularly that you believe is immoral.
Personally, though Der Trihs is clearly very blunt, I strongly value his contributions to the boards. I don’t find daringness positive in and of itself, but I do find that he dares to express unpopular views that few others are willing to (of course, I admire this daring because I tend to agree with him – IMHO YMMV KFC LMNOP). And I’ve never seen him be unduly blatantly rude to another poster.
Since I had posted prior to his diatribe that I was against abortion in most cases, I find it very rude and personally insulting for him to say that means that I hate all women and want them to die. Also that I would tie women to beds and force them to give birth even it killed them and then gloat over the body.
If that’s not unduly blatantly rude, you and I have very different ideas of what rude is.
Some religious people can acknowledge that they might be wrong. Those people might think that those who don’t believe as they do can do “immoral” things and sort it out with god later. In any case, making something legal is not the same as endorsing it. Our society is not of the “anything not forbidden is compulsory” type.
Now, those who do think they can’t allow anything they think is religiously immoral shouldn’t serve, since I don’t see how they can try to enforce religious beliefs while swearing to uphold the Constitution. That should get rid of lots of Republicans, so I’m all for it.
The line being:
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” – Steven Roberts
I think this shows you don’t understand this quote - which a lot of other people have used also.
All it means is that the logical and historical reasoning you use in not accepting Zeus as existing we also apply to your god - no special pleading. Since much of the early OT implicitly accepts the existence of other gods (inferior to God though they may be) you can’t even say you don’t accept them because the Bible always said they don’t exist - a feeble reason at best.
Remember, the quote doesn’t even say you should become an atheist - it just gives a way a theist can understand why atheists think as we do.
That is great advice. I just responded in that thread (without reading the rest of it) and immediately regretted it. He’s a troll. I know he’s a troll. You know he’s a troll. Everyone knows, including him. Ignore him, he’ll go away.
…is indeed an unpopular opinion. It is not an extreme version of the pro-choice position, however. I would call it vile if it weren’t so juvenile.
Do you really think pro-choice and anti-war opinions are unpopular on this board? Read his bullshit again. It’s not “unpopular” because at its foundation it opposes certain things. It’s made-up, idiotic nonsense, specifically designed to troll. And, gosh darnit, it sure works, don’t it?
Stripped of silliness and hyperbole, the D-T thesis is that there is a particular political culture that is ascendent in the US. That culture is pro-violence and pro-cruelty, yet it is in an alliance with a sizeable religious polity. Perhaps the two are allied by a common inclination to invasiveness. That could be seen and shown as rapacity.
When he posts about things that rile him, instead of seeing a benevolent system with atrocities as aberrations, D-T describes those as the flowering of several cruel and violent and rapacious ambitions, which directly stem from the dominant culture.
Exactly. Every time he says the things he does, he is directly criticizing and insulting many of the people who he is conversing with. Think about this…he states that EVERYONE who is an American is EVIL. This means that he believes that most of the people he converses with are EVIL, assuming that most people who post here live in the US. If you are a US citizen, THIS MEANS YOU.
I dunno. I haven’t read any of your posts so I don’t know what your position is, but an awful lot of anti-abortion folks describe abortion as murder and folks who support it as accomplices. Do you not understand why this might lead some of us to respond in kind wrt the perceived hostility of the anti-abortion folks to the welfare of adult women? I mean, I just see Der Trihs’ statement as a balance to all the “abortion is murder” cant that floats about – and not a very extreme one. Sorry if that bugs you. But … not very sorry.
Yeah, thank you for calling bullshit on this. I’m not fond of this “minority persecuted for his political beliefs” deal, but especially when it’s someone who’s - gasp! - pro-choice or anti-war. Those really aren’t unpopular views around here. What is unpopular is how he’s been expressing those views. And I’m probably not the only one who’s a bit irked to be sharing politics with someone who makes my side look worse.
What do you want, a Get Out of Culpability Free card? God forbid anyone find any group of people evil or at fault, lest a member of that group happen to find their way to the Dope! If that’s his thesis, that’s his damn thesis. Sorry. No sympathy here. The idea of finding a poster’s views intrinsically offensive because they implicate you is laughable, IMO.
If someone is saying something you don’t agree with, you probably don’t share their viewpoint.
Example:
your [assumed for the sake of this roleplay] view: “I am pro-choice”.
Der Trihs’ view: “Easy; I don’t believe them. They know that most people here won’t put up with condemning American women to death, so they lie and say it’s OK to get an abortion to save her life. If they could, they’d chain every pregnant woman to a bed to make sure she didn’t get an abortion, and if she died they’d gloat over the corpse.”
These are different– but, obviously, connected-- views. You can choose to see the latter view as a ‘rude’ version of your own view, but, with all due respect, I find that to be a highly narcissistic approach. If he is espousing a belief that you do not agree with, it is a different view. A rude version of your view would be: “I am pro-choice…you fucking cuntlicker fuck fucker.”