And if people of faith did then I would have no problem.
Rarely do religious people come around spouting non judgmental love and things that make them a better person. Usually it is along the lines of FriarTed wishing to see sinners piss themselves at the pearly gates or Poly talking about the heir to the wallmart fortune as the second coming.
No the mark of an immature asshole is one who will not tolerate opposing views or calls people immature assholes for having a different view. Shouting down religionists is not intolerance of different views. As you said faith is not subject to proof their is nothing to debate you want to believe in magic flying faeries or not it doesn’t matter to me. It is when people start spouting matters of faith like who will burn in hell or that souls exist or whatever that I have a problem. Somebody wants to say souls exist that’s fine by me it is when they say souls exist and here is why you are stupid for not agreeing with me that I think they should be taken to task. Their stupid arguments are fair game, the fact that they choose to believe in souls is not really my concern. Just like I do not care if someone espouses belief in god. It is only when they start saying that others should that I have a problem.
If it ever once led them to treat anyone with dignity or respect I would have no problem and in fact would encourage such beliefs. Usually religionists do nothing of the kind, they berate pontificate and use their faith to reinforce feelings of smug self satisfaction.
Well, if you are manic on usage, you should note that the phrase used the word “fundie” rather than “fundamentalist.” Fundie, (or Fundy away from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), indicates a zealot who, beyond firmly believing in one’s cause, appears to be incapable of considering any possible reality than one’s own and is certainly as correctly applied to evangelical atheists, (a rare species, but well represented on this board), as to other forms of believers.
I would agree that “fundamentalist atheist” would be inappropriate and inaccurate, but “fundy” is a newer word with a somewhat different meaning.
I don’t think you know the difference between “fact” and “opinion” anymore than you seem to be able to tell your mouth and asshole apart.
Oh, fuck off - anyone can read your stupid post and see the dribbling idiocy there. The only way DT would not have been banned for flaming were if there was some mod conspiracy - how else could he be, and I quote, “allowed to stick around”? So yeah, that’s exactly what you posited -stick up for your nutjobbery, man, don’t disown it.
DT hasn’t been banned because he hasn’t done anything that merits banning, plain and simple.
Must be my raging antisemitism and hatred for America, freedom and apple pie, I guess.
As one who lives with a bordeline Asperger’s Syndrome person, I will note that this is poppycock. The inability to empathize with other humans hardly makes one a disinterested observer of life. In fact, I will assert the opposite: having an inability to empathize with others while falling prey to exactly the same emotions, means one simply is incapable of judging when one might have been swayed by emotion because all one’s emotions are “reality” with no capacity to evaluate them against the clear presence of similar emotions in others. There is no emotion that I have not witnessed in Asperger’s sufferers. (I have even seen limited compassion–although always filtered through the self-absorbed eyes of a solipsistic world view.)
I make no claim to know your condition; I simply point out that the only thing Asperger’s types lack is a perception that others share emotions–they certainly are every bit as emotional even if they do not control it well.
Which of course addresses, let alone rebuts all the factual claims I’ve put forward. But surely, rote denial is much more convincing than Der’s actual posting history which you’re lying about, toad.
Look how stupid you are.
My experiences have no bearing on objective reality. That said, I do embrace my experiences, in so far as they help me to learn what it is to be a human. Here’s what I’ve learned so far through my own subjective experience:
• Human perception is grossly fallible.
•The human brain is prone to hallucinations and other deceiving perseptions depending on the state of mind… even when we think we’re fully aware and lucid.
• Humans want to believe in something bigger.
• Humans can be gullible.
• Humans can be stupid.
• Humans can be egotistical.
•Humans can be delusional.
•Humans can be selfish.
• Humans can be disingenuous.
• Humans can be deceitful.
• When in discomfort, humans have the ability to deceive themselves to make them feel better.
• But, best of all, Humans can overcome the above by humbly accepting all the above to be true.
The last point especially. Without this realization, you will be vulnerable to all the other points to an obscene degree, eclipsing all the positive, progressive things humans are capable of.
Anyone’s welcome to go over his history for themselves. I haven’t said anything in this thread to actually defend it (not that it needs defending), so I don’t know what you think I’m lying about, exactly.
What I have been trying to get through to you is that whether something is a “ban worthy flame” is not a fact, but an opinion. One the mods clearly don’t agree with you on. And their opinion is the one that counts. You poor simp.
Holy shit… I used the ‘look how stupid’ meme because I found it amusing, but dayum, you really are very fucking stupid, aintcha? It’s funny that you babble about not knowing the difference between fact and opinion, and then can’t find out what facts I posted because you believe they’re all opinions.
I will note, however, that you’re quite stupid for a liar. A good liar at least has to have a good memory. Here, you can’t even remember what you posted just a few hours ago. I mean, honestly, how fucking stupid are you? You claim that you haven’t said anything to defend his posting history… right after you claim that his habit of continual flaming either doesn’t exist (because it would take a conspiracy to ignore it, natch) or isn’t worthy of mod attention because the mods have to violate their own posted rules in order to ignore his behavior.
And yes, his flames are quite clearly ban-worthy and would be if the words “conservative” were replaced with one of the Dope’s protected groups. I mean, all of your stupidity aside, how long do you think a poster would last in GD if instead of “conservatives are evil” they continually posted things like “gays are evil”. See, that’s called ‘intellectual honesty’. I know, integrity is a strange concept for you. Go slow, you’ll get it eventually.
Of course, if Der singled out individual conservative Dopers instead of simply flaming each and every single one, freely, while mods compliment him on his ability to admit that it’s only his hate filled opinions that drive him to flame so freely in GD of all places? Then he’d force their hand. But as it stands, they deliberately ignore his continual violations of the rule against directly insulting other posters because he’s so full of rage and hate that he doesn’t just insult one or two Dopers at a time, he directly casts personal insults at each and every single Dopers whose politics disagree with his.
Funny, of course, that you mouthbreathers in this thread have been gnawing on my ankles for taking exception to someone ‘just because they disagree with me’, when the guy you’re defending habitually flames people, in GD, for disagreeing with him.
Irony is sometimes lost on morons, evidently.
Even a silly little liar like you should be able to recognize that saying “conservatives are evil” is a flame, and it explicitly includes conservative Dopers, and thus is a flame of Dopers. And again, even a mouthbreathing liar such as yourself should be able to recognize that if Der slightly changed his flames from “conservatives are evil” to “you, poster X are a conservative and, thus, evil” that even his status as the board’s pet lunatic fringer wouldn’t keep him around for long. At that point, it’d be blatant enough that even the weaksauce rule that you’re allowed to flame all you want in GD as long as you flame enough people of a non-protected class, would collapse. If smoke is shooting out of your ears as you attempt to use logic rather than invective, try to figure out who’d draw moderator attention if, in response to one of Der’s flames against conservatives, someone responded “People who say that about conservatives are assholes” let alone “I’m a conservative ,and you’re an asshole for flaming me.”
Then, if you’re feeling like having some integrity, wonder why it is that someone could claim that anyone who holds conservative values is an asshole, but someone who responded directly to that person would be in line for a Warning.
This isn’t exactly rocket science.
But then again, you’re not exactly a rocket scientist, are ya?
Under normal circumstances, it takes me several hours to summon up the gumption to go outside and check the mailbox, or visit Jack-in-the-Box, etc. At the current moment, it’s trivial. There’s no resistance at all. And that only one “issue” that’s seemingly resolved – there are a dozen others that I haven’t mentioned.
As for the “tool” I use to examine the evidence…umm, my brain? I’m not lying, and I don’t think I’m just pretending to be non-agoraphobic right now.
I would define it differently – your experiences have a dramatic effect on how you perceive & interpret objective reality. Especially early childhood experiences – that’s basic psychology, and part of the whole “Nature vs. Nurture” debate. Additionally, we all perceive different parts of reality (the parts most important to our desires and goals) and we all place different emotional weight on commonly shared experiences – for example, thanks to the loss I described earlier today, the parody song “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer” just doesn’t seem so funny anymore. :rolleyes:
Is that for real?? I keep sensing that in people – ALL people, it seems – but I wasn’t sure if I was projecting or not. That said, I wish I’d learned that skill…I simply don’t know how to do that.
Hmm…not sure I’d put so much importance on that line, because it seems to be patently self-evident, and discounts the action of external forces keeping you imprisoned – if you grew up in a concentration camp, your options are quite limited, ya know? Thanks for the response, though…it was an interesting read.
Again, I wasn’t actually asking for the evidence, just the means of evaluating it, but you also answered that, so thanks.
I think a problem you may have inadvertently overlooked is in that the problems that have existed for you, whatever form they may take, are the result of your brain. It has, in the past, been for whatever reason, somewhat faulty (and I mean no offense by this; I too have a mental issue of my own, though I am thankful it isn’t anywhere near severe). In the past, some part of the workings of you brain haven’t done you particularly well. And now, in order to evaluate whether your brain is working ok, you’re using your brain itself to evaluate that. You can’t use a tool to know whether the tool itself isn’t faulty. To go back to my ruler example, if I wanted to know whether or not it correctly measures centimetres/inches, I can’t test that by comparing it against itself. If it’s correct, it will appear to be correct. If it’s incorrect, it may well still appear to be correct. Now imagine in the past that the ruler has been shown to be wrong. It becomes still yet unreasonable to use it to measure it’s own correctness.
This doesn’t of course mean that you’re wrong. It just means that, at least in my opinion, had I a history of particular problems with my mind (as indeed I do), I would not consider my mind to be a reasonable judge as to whether I no longer have those problems. It’s saying, “Yes, I had a lot of problems in the past; but the source of those problems tells me it’s fine now!”. It just doesn’t seem a reasonable method of judging that.
That was more a change of terminology than philosophy.
Of course science has been wrong. What’s wrong with admitting that? Being wrong is part of the scientific method; you test a hypothesis assuming it might be wrong. Science isn’t about what you know, it’s centrally about what you DON’T know, and how you approach gaining that knowledge.
KGS is just babbling; there’s nothing scientific being discussed here. He’s got problems.
This, dear sir, is blatant psychiatric bullshit. I know my brain like no one else in the world – I am the ONLY person who has had to live with myself 24/7, and nobody… NOBODY… has any authority AT ALL when they claim to know how my brain works better than I do. The subject is not even up for debate; and frankly, it sickens me to watch psychiatrists & other authority figures make such sweeping judgments on anyone.
It does sound to me like you’re just parroting what your own psychiatrists have probably told you, so I’ll forgive the remark.
I understand what you’re getting at, and yes, communication is very important. That said, my family does NOT communicate. Especially the fundamentalist Christian side of my family – they make up shit out of whole cloth, they insist you accept their made-up shit without complaint or debate, and they punish you severely for failing to accept their made-up shit. Not only that, I believe they have intentionally sought out doctors & therapists (and this has been going on since I was six years old) who agree with their concept of fake reality; it wasn’t until late in life when I started choosing my OWN personal therapist(s) – at great financial cost, I might add – before I started making any headway at all on my “condition”, whatever label you want to give it.
And yet here you are, babbling too. What compelled you to point that out? Is there something in my world that disturbs you? What are you frightened of?
