[QUOTE=Oakminster]
That ain’t the point. The MAB is a fictional entity created for mild comedic flavor. Qualification for membership is at my sole discretion. If it makes you feel any better, you can start a Posts-too-much-wacky-hippie-lawyer-dude-with-extra-scifi/fantasy-geekieosity club, and list me as a member.
[/QUOTE]
Done. PTMWHLDESG doesn’t have enough vowels to be a truly GOOD one though.
[QUOTE=Apos]
Done. PTMWHLDESG doesn’t have enough vowels to be a truly GOOD one though.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I am a member of D.U.C.K. (Druid Universal Conspiracy to Kill) detailed here:
http://ancarett.com/eqhumour.html#duck
(scroll down for details, or just enjoy the page of classic EQ Humor)
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I believe it is a mischaracterization to call theistic debates either literalistic or focused. They can emcompass anything from physicalism to pantheism.
[/quote]
You’re really driving way off the trolley tracks on this one. I wasn’t calling those debates that: I was saying that YOUR assumed focus was way too obsessively specific, when in fact there is no such strong focus to anything involved.
Is that what this is all about? You are so steamed over the fact that I thought your analogy was poor that you thought you’d thrash it out of me in this thread? I had completely forgotten about that thread until now. Now that I read it again, I don’t feel any particular desire to jump back into it and bring out another tirade there either.
OOOO CRIME OF THE CENTURY! Let’s not OVERREACT to EVERY POSSIBLE CRAZY NITPICK you can THINK OF, or anything. We have two votes for “the subject isn’t that obsessively specific” and lots and lots of votes for “we don’t give a flying fuck at the moon what you two are bickering about.” Better summary of the state of things?
It was a snotty put down inelegantly disguised as a GD thread, which I have a hard time believing you REALLY thought was so inscrutably obscure. If anything, I reconsidered it in light of the fact that it could be considered junior modding. But you’ve missed the point. You dont’ have to defend the case. The point is that if I wanted to invent some sort of vast obsession you have with me, I could point to that post and make a big deal about it too. With just as little sense.
No, I’m not.
Again: if it comes down to it, I don’t see any way to compare the difficulty of justifying “atheist” worldviews from “theist” worldviews, because the only sensible meaning that statement could really have is some sort of collective addition of all the different and distinct worldviews that are either theistic vs. those which are not, and try evaluating them all. I don’t even begin to know how to do that, or why, so yes, I don’t really have a position on the issue. Okay? It isn’t of interest to me to have an opinion on worth mentioning or interjecting.
I have done and will do.
There wasn’t anything cryptic about that.
Where did I ever say “I’m done with this?” I’m virtually never done with anything: it’s clearly a character flaw of mine, and a burden to the SDMB servers, but there it is. I did say “case closed” because it’s quite obvious and simple what happened, I summarized it, and you’re the only one trying to make a big about it because, apparently, you’re outraged that Clinton thought Bosnia was an important thing to not let slide.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I have visited GD twice since Buck’s warning to me.
[/quote]
If you’re referring to this post, that wasn’t an official warning, just a request to keep the thread on track.
Then what the hell did you mean when you typed, “Case closed.”? A closed case is a done case, is it not? You need a new hobby.
I was referring to that post, yes. And I’m relieved to hear that it was not an official warning, thanks.
I do believe, however, that the post was exactly on point. The OP was indeed dragging his Pit thread to GD as my link to it proved. He was eventually banned for trolling. In short, I believe that you saw a hijack where none existed. Are you willing to concede at least the possibility of that?
I wasn’t posting to re-hash that old thread, only to clarify that I hadn’t given you an official warning.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Cite that they’ve ever used either one of those words [esp. in the stated context]? Or are those your words?
[/QUOTE]
Of course they didn’t use those words, as the “say” in my sentence indicates. Hate speech against atheists (“full of shit”) and the transgendered (“delusional, surgically mutliated fags”) is still socially acceptable. And those last two are exact quotes from their show. “Nigger” or “kike,” though? They’d be off the air so quick your TV would send off a shower of sparks.
[QUOTE=Eve]
Of course they didn’t use those words, as the “say” in my sentence indicates. Hate speech against atheists (“full of shit”) and the transgendered (“delusional, surgically mutliated fags”) is still socially acceptable. And those last two are exact quotes from their show. “Nigger” or “kike,” though? They’d be off the air so quick your TV would send off a shower of sparks.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, so it’s ok to use those words as long as you put them in quotation marks and ascribe them to the subject of your vitriol, only coming clean that they never used them when taken to task. I see, thanks for the lesson.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Ah, so it’s ok to use those words as long as you put them in quotation marks and ascribe them to the subject of your vitriol, only coming clean that they never used them when taken to task. I see, thanks for the lesson.
[/QUOTE]
Oh for crissakes, either learn to read, or to reason, or start your own thread about your heroes at South Park if you want to. I won’t join you; South Park’s hate speech has already been done to death. If I want to argue with boneheaded bigots I can do that at work.
Oh, no, wait, I can’t, there aren’t any boneheaded bigots at work, only here. Hmmm. Remind me again why I come here? I’ve already broken all my SDMB New Year’s resolutions and it’s still only January. I think I’ll take a break till next January, and maybe by then I will be able to not let the tiny buzzing mosquitos of the world bother me.
Yes, I’m a boneheaded bigot because I see the hypocrisy in your being a South Park fan until they said something that hit home with you, and now you’re frothing at the mouth with hatred for everything about Parker and Stone.
:rolleyes:
I know you’re way too insanely popular around here for me to ever win an argument in the pit with you, and you obviously don’t want to say anything rational anyway, so eat shit. I’m done here.
[QUOTE=Eve]
Of course they didn’t use those words, as the “say” in my sentence indicates. Hate speech against atheists (“full of shit”) and the transgendered (“delusional, surgically mutliated fags”) is still socially acceptable. And those last two are exact quotes from their show. “Nigger” or “kike,” though? They’d be off the air so quick your TV would send off a shower of sparks.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, “nigger” was in the punchline of a 2001 episode called Here Comes the Neighborhood and the entire episode was pretty borderline anyway.
Anyhoo, the atheism threads are just tedious and prompted by a few malcontents who see the religious types claiming victimhood (“War on Christmas! AAAAHHH!”) and wanted to get a piece of the action by declaring that the SDMB was running a low-key war on atheism. It’s all bullshit, mixed in with traumatic childhood memories and a seething ulcerating resentment highlighted by the November-December Christmas consumerism orgy.
[QUOTE=Eve]
Oh for crissakes, either learn to read, or to reason, or start your own thread about your heroes at South Park if you want to. I won’t join you; South Park’s hate speech has already been done to death. If I want to argue with boneheaded bigots I can do that at work.
Oh, no, wait, I can’t, there aren’t any boneheaded bigots at work, only here. Hmmm. Remind me again why I come here? I’ve already broken all my SDMB New Year’s resolutions and it’s still only January. I think I’ll take a break till next January, and maybe by then I will be able to not let the tiny buzzing mosquitos of the world bother me.
[/QUOTE]
Eve, it’s a lost cause-this is the moron who once compared to people dissing Jackass to anti-semitism.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Yes, I’m a boneheaded bigot because I see the hypocrisy in your being a South Park fan until they said something that hit home with you, and now you’re frothing at the mouth with hatred for everything about Parker and Stone.
[/QUOTE]
Why is that necessarily hypocritical? It could be a case of someone’s eyes being opened.
I don’t watch South Park and, indeed, hate it, so don’t ask me for specifics. But it’s very possible to go from enjoying something to loathing it without being a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
May I submit that the detection of sarcasm might betray a larger issue, and explain why you saw what you did in my post to the OP. I was not being sarcastic. I have a history of defending atheists against theists, and in particular Christians. I know that they are a six pack and a pickup truck away from being bashed as badly as any homosexual.
[/QUOTE]
Then may I suggest that “squalid” was the wrong word? Poor situation, certainly, discriminated against, sure. But squalid? I’ve only been to the U.S. once, but I didn’t see the hordes of athiests living out on the streets. Seemed like hyperbole there, and so sarcasm. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable conclusion.
But hey, it seems i’ve misread you again. So I apologise.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Eve, it’s a lost cause-this is the moron who once compared to people dissing Jackass to anti-semitism.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, slather your tongue vigorously around her royal golden asshole. Ridiculous shit like this is exactly why I should’ve known better than to call out a poster as universally revered as Eve in the pit. It is good to know that you’re dumb enough to have missed my point in the thread you linked to, though, Guin.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why is that necessarily hypocritical?
[/QUOTE]
With regards to something like South Park, it’s either a joke or it’s not. It’s hypocritical to say that everything they said about other minority groups was funny and then fly off the handle when they come after a group that you happen to belong to.
If Eve is so appalled by what they said about transgendered people then where was she when they were making fun of gays, jews, blacks, catholics, muslims, republicans, democrats, environmentalists, etc etc? Laughing her ass off, that’s where.
I believe it’s hypocritical to have your cake and eat it too in the way. If you disagree, fine, but if you just spit insults like “boneheaded bigot” at me then you’re not really doing much for your [lack of an] argument.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Then what the hell did you mean when you typed, “Case closed.”?
[/quote]
I explained that at some length already.
Sigh. You know what. Have fun. I’ll continue my vast conspiracy to destroy you without the headache of having to argue over what the definition of the word is is every three seconds.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
With regards to something like South Park, it’s either a joke or it’s not.
[/quote]
Why?
I don’t know the people behind the show, so I can’t say what they believe or don’t believe, but it’s possible to have varying levels of sincerity and intent to wound even in a comedy.
Not necessarily. I could find something funny because I thought it had a kernel of truth, say, and when they come after something where I know they don’t have a kernel of truth I realize that maybe they are just stupid.
It’s also true that comedians can cross lines. If I make a minor joke about the Pope and then start saying that black people should be lynched, is it okay for someone to have laughed at the Pope joke but think I went too far with the lynching comments? Especially if the lynching comments came after the Pope joke?
South Park revels in shock humor. I find the show uniformly disgusting because I don’t like shock humor at all.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why?
I don’t know the people behind the show, so I can’t say what they believe or don’t believe, but it’s possible to have varying levels of sincerity and intent to wound even in a comedy.
Not necessarily. I could find something funny because I thought it had a kernel of truth, say, and when they come after something where I know they don’t have a kernel of truth I realize that maybe they are just stupid.
It’s also true that comedians can cross lines. If I make a minor joke about the Pope and then start saying that black people should be lynched, is it okay for someone to have laughed at the Pope joke but think I went too far with the lynching comments? Especially if the lynching comments came after the Pope joke?
South Park revels in shock humor. I find the show uniformly disgusting because I don’t like shock humor at all.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that there are varying degrees of offensiveness, but it does strike me as a little too much of a coincidence if it is true that Eve was not offended by their humor until they made fun of a group she happens to belong to. Personally, I find their brand of satire pretty amusing…so when they have picked on a couple of groups I belong to, I say, hey, if you can dish it out, you have to be able to take it.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
…it does strike me as a little too much of a coincidence if it is true that Eve was not offended by their humor until they made fun of a group she happens to belong to.
[/QUOTE]
Why? Empathy is borne from similarities, not from differences.
While I note that there’s no evidence presented that Eve did, in fact, give that “humor” a pass until wounded by it, I also must comment that one sometimes cannot recognize untruthful humor until one directly experiences it as a target.
Parker and Stone tend to follow opposition memes. That’s not necessarily malicious as opposed to lazy, but it might as well be. With no attempt to establish verisimilitude beyond superficial mimicing of broad brush stereotypes, the South Park formula becomes just another form of false witness.