Why is it I’m suddenly reminded of PRR’s endless defense of badchad?
Funnily enough, that’s the metaphor that’s often occurred to me whenever I ponder why people are religious. Great thinkers from Plato and Aristotle through to Darwin, Einstein and beyond have devoted their lives towards building us ever sturdier baskets and buckets in which to carry the water of knowledge, yet billions of people still don’t want to give up their sieves. I respect the right of anyone to carry water in a sieve. I don’t respect the belief that a sieve is a good method of carrying water. What’s to respect there?
(I know that’s not what you wanted the metaphor to refer to, I’m just throwing out another application of the metaphor for your consideration)
Oh and here’s a few things I’ve seen in this thread that I don’t like, and that reflect badly on the people posting them:
-
“Der Doo-doo-head”. Har fucking har. Grow the fuck up.
-
“Loser who lives in his mum’s basement”. Har fucking har. Grow the fuck up.
-
“Der Trihs calls all American soldiers murderers and wishes they all die”. Very true. And reprehensible. And, since this thread is about his views on RELIGION and means of expressing those views… irrelevant.
-
“So obnoxious he undermines his arguments”. No. Or rather, ‘only to people who want to latch on to something irrelevant to avoid rational discourse’.
ETA, oh and 5) Der Trihs, will you get your arse in here please?
IANA mod but I would interpret the examples given (war, capital punishment) to apply to statements such as, “They need to round up the Al-Queda and kill them all,” or, “All child killers should be given the electric chair.” I don’t interpret the sentence to mean that during the course of a thread about the war in Iraq that I can wish death upon people who are
- Performing the duties they promised to do as determined by their government and
- Members in good standing of this board
If during the Intifada in Israel someone had posted that all Israeli soldiers were murderers and they wished they were dead, not only would there have been condemnation of the statement by the mods but probably charges of anti-Semitism would have been hurled.
Actually, that ruling was specifically about calling a group of people “murderers” and was not about threatening that group. If the poster had stated, “All airmen are murderers and should be killed,” wouldn’t that be considered a threat against you and your fellow service members?
PRR?
I’d like to see what would happen if you stuck Der Trihs and lekatt in a room together.
Oh look, Princhester and MrDibble are defending the well-documented insane hatred of Der Trihs. No one would have expected that to happen.
Fuck you, too.
There’s nothing “insane” about being against either religion or especially the American-led occupation of Iraq. Just a tire old ad hominem from people who can’t actually defend the indefensible.
I do wish he’d actually attend his own pittings, but, well, there you go, he’s always been honest about it. Me, I’m not going to let these pile-ons go unanswered, and it looks like I’m not the only one.
Har har, I grew up. Get over your self righteous indignation.
And it isn’t irrelevant to the pitting if delineating a method of posting (namely, outright hatred) can show a pattern of behavior that’s demonstrated no matter the topic of discussion Der Trihs is involved in.
Har har.
“tired”, even.
But isn’t there a more sane and civilized way of expressing that outrage?
You know, you can be vehement in your positions on something without, say, wishing death on hundreds of thousands of fellow Americans.
Nancarrow, Princhester, MrDibble, Tagos and anyone I left out.
I did a cost-benefit analysis. Decided that Der Trihs was probably going to merely repeat the talking points I have heard a million times before. I repeated what I expected him to say in my head, and then my rebuttals, and then decided that typing it out was not worth the effort.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend?
When people insist that they know the argument and then deny fundamentals, is there really any point in arguing with him? If he can’t comprehend the simple idea that Christianity presented a religion that crossed tribal boundaries in a time when religion was generally based off of tribal affiliation, then he’s not on the same page. I’d have no problem discussing it with someone whose mind were less closed. By less closed I do not mean someone who will merely be converted. (My ideas are pretty far from a mainstream Christian anyway, so it’s not about what I believe but fundamentals that no Christian would disagree with.) There is this atheist idea that Christianity is more mutable than it is, that there aren’t significant points of agreement that all Christians share, or that the history of Christianity is not discernable enough to view certain patterns.
So why should I participate in such a discussion with someone who is willfully ignorant of and hostile to Christianity?
I know that you atheists like to close ranks and then deny that you do it right after you did it, but closing ranks with Der Trihs doesn’t make much sense to me. When you guys lay into lekatt do you see my jumping to defend? An idiot’s an idiot, and defending one is idiocy. ;p
“All religion is equally stupid.”, isn’t a valid stance to take. There is no real response to something like that. There is no reason to take his position as valid when he is using it to invalidate the very premise of the argument.
What do you guys have against rationality anyway? 
Not spent a lot of time in CS I take it?
Hey, not believing in God and thinking that American troops are evil are valid positions. I know he holds those positions. Why is there some impetus for me to hear him repeat them AGAIN?
Homeboy’s a broken record, and for that reason, I dismissed him.
He has no responsibility to change, and I have no responsibility to take him seriously.
Sales of Ann Coulter’s new book, * I Disagree Strongly with Liberals but I Respect Their Opinion*, have been called “extremely disappointing.”
The wishing death on them isn’t a side-effect of the vehemence of the position, it’s a natural consequence of their own actions. If they want to fight on the wrong side of a war, then winning that war (by the right side) means either their death, surrender or withdrawal. Since the last two don’t seem to be happening, well, what does that leave us?
Of course, I’m not American, but DT has always said that doesn’t matter to him anyway, as well he should. It’s a bullshit facet of theargument.
There’s no self-righteous indignation here. I think your namecalling is infantile, and I expressed this opinion. I don’t need to be self-righteous or indignant to do that.
Instead of telling me to ‘get over myself’, you could say ‘yeah that was a bit childish of me, I just got a bit flustered, I’ll try harder to resist that urge in future’. It really depends on your ability to accept criticism.
Your point about pattern of behaviour is irrelevant. DT is vehement when talking about Iraq, he’s vehement when talking about religion. Since we’re talking about religion here, what does bringing up his views on Iraq accomplish? If you want to pit him about those, why not start a separate thread rather than hijack this one?
I haven’t spent a lot of time on here period, as I recently joined.
So Der Thris is a ray of enlightenment on entertainment topics but a douchebag otherwise?
At least he’s consistent.
That sounds like the MO of recently banned TLRSERIESOFRANDOMLETTERS.
But I hear her Cinemax late night feature “Skeletal Sex With The Vampire Queen” is doing quite well…
OK, then, it was immature. I am in no way flustered, other than being outraged that a fellow countrymen would hold such a vile hatred by wishing death upon every US servicemember in Iraq.
Stooping to saying that is putting himself on he same level with what he abhors, IMO.
So our entire military force should just lay down their arms and let themselves be slaughtered? I think this ground has been covered before, ad naseum, but just because people that do not agree with this war (or any war) call it “illegal” doesn’t make it so.
And, if it isn’t illegal, then US soldiers cannot claim that being ordered to go there is an illegal order, and are in violation of the UCMJ if they do so. That part of it is pretty clear.
FWIW, I do not agree with this war either, but damned if I am going to slam the soldiers for it when the blame lies at the bloody feet of the politicians that put them there.