Well, you lost a lot of credibility with this statement but I’ll read on.
Oops. Is this the old communists are atheists therefore atheism is just as bad as religion stuff? Or is this, “I hate when non-religious people refuse to tolerate religious intolerance.” Or maybe it’s the “fair and balanced” false equivalence in which atheists who wish there was no religion are somehow equated with religious fundamentalists who actively take away other peoples civil rights. Either way, strike two.
Looks like a riff on the disingenuous, “Hate the sin but not the sinner.” Strike three.
Oh, good grief, DT. Don’t take this place so seriously. Fighting ignorance since 1973 is just a tagline, like calling The Fantastic Four “the world’s greatest comic magazine.” People come to the SDMB to play. To be in company with persons who like to play with words and read and talk. There’s no reason not to be nice to one another; it makes everyone’s experience better.
Obama “released” what Hawaii gives everyone born in Hawaii: a certificate of live birth. The “birth certificate” is in a bound book in the state archives. Obama could not “release” it because he didn’t have it. Numerous people looked at the original and said “yup, it’s there”, but after years of morons like you being convinced by the research you do in the checkout line at the supermarkets, the President petitioned Hawaii (not him, jackass, he didn’t have it) to release a photocopy of the page in the book.
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking that these actual original documents (BC, College records, tax records, and so on) could be taken out, sealed in protective glass cases, and tour the country like the “King Tut” exhibit.
Excuse you, Skald. But Der Trihs is so motherfucking righteous that he won’t let simple “etiquette” and “sociability” stand in the way of his cause. I mean, if he has to* be a dick on the internet* to make the world a better place, he’ll fucking do that. He’s that hardcore. He’s doing this for morality. The kind of morality that doesn’t require you to run your yap at work or seek political office or mount a revolution—you know, you might lose your job or your fun toys or go to jail by doing that. But instead the kind of morality for which you can strike a blow by being shitty and self-important online. How dare you try to stand in the way of such a noble cause! How dare you!
Because the default assumption in our society is that everyone is straight. This assumption causes us to treat people with certain conventions that, if you’re not straight, leave you out in the cold.
So, by stating it clearly in his introduction (“Hello, I’m Mike, and I’m gay.”), he’s letting you know that common assumptions about his life - which would work perfectly fine with a straight person - will not work with him. He’s asking you, obliquely, to take into account that he diverges from the norm and would really appreciate your recognition of that fact and an effort to treat him like he’s still a human being with feelings.
So . . . don’t fucking ask him if he thinks that chick is hot. If you think being gay is Teh Gross, don’t ask him questions about his relationships, his thoughts on sex, or anything else that might make you gag. Don’t assume the picture of a guy on his desk is his brother, his platoon buddy, or his kidney donor. Don’t spout off Biblical verses about the evils of the gay in front of him or tell queer jokes.
He was not bring it all forward. He did not grab your penis or try to french kiss you, dude. He didn’t even compliment your hair and ask you out on a date. He gave you a relevant piece of information to help you negotiate small adjustments in common courtesy.
It’s a good move if it’s intended to troll the Birthers and exacerbate the Republicans’ ongoing dilemma (pander to the crackpots and alienate reasonable middle-of-the-road people, or distance themselves from the crackpots and alienate a chunk of their base).
Alright, I guess I did use those words. I’m not gonna try to make excuses, so let me just say that if you’ll allow me too, I’d reract that statement and revise it to “you have the right to call religion evil just because you disagree with it, but doing so will lead me to not take you seriously”.
I wasn’t condemning nazism or communism because they are nazism or communism, I was condemning what they caused. Communism is fine if it doesn’t involve killing people, since I can see the arguments for both a socialist model and an authoritarian government. I disagree with those arguments, but communism isn’t inherently evil.
Nazism? Maybe it can work in a non-evil way, but since as far as I can tell nazism is just “hitler rocks!11! Let’s kill Jews and black!”, I’m less inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you for the personal insults; I’m sure they help your argument. Now, I am sorry I asked why Obama didn’t do whatever he did sooner. I was ranting, and was trying to show that both sides make mistakes. Maybe he could have done something sooner, maybe he couldn’t have; frankly I don’t give a crap. If you bother getting your head out of your ass and reading my post, you’ll see that I used half a sentence to complain about Obama and a full paragraph to complain about birthers, because I completely agree with you about their stupidity. I don’t see why you think I agree with them, but whatever you want to believe is fine.
I said NOTHING about atheists here! I said that people who hate all religious people on principal piss me off, just as people who hate all atheists or heretics or nonbelievers or any other category piss me off. Where the FUCK did you find communism? Where did I say that atheists are bad because of communists? If I HAD said that, I’d be contradicting myself, because the categorical hatred group includes people who use that argument.
Der Trihs stands for all that is decent and just, and if he has to personally shit down the neck of every one of you motherfucking bastards in order to prove it, then by Christ, he’ll do it!!
Tomatoes have veins running through them. They have areas that look like organs. They are not plants. They are a weird and odd specie that man should respect and not treat like food.
Ok, maybe Der Trihs is a bit overzealous, but making fun of him is wrong in the same way that the way he chooses to argue is wrong. Can we tone it down a bit, or at least not make posts for the sole purpose of annoying him?
Humor may be the only way of getting through to him. I would like to see others offer jokes about his constant appeals to harmlessness, but total disregard of other virtues such as moderation, acknowledging the limitations of the human mind, and the possibility that things that are self-evident to him must not be self-evident to those he disagrees with and therefore requiring of explanation. He’s obviously intelligent, but his posts are a parody of the SDMB.
Or maybe some philosopher should start a thread on how permanent, fixed-weight moral rules inevitably lead to cruel excesses. Whatever works.
