Exactly.
And the level of truthiness in the humor isn’t necessarily objective. I can think one thing is funny because I think there’s a kernel of truth, and another thing isn’t funny because I don’t think there’s a kernel of truth, and there’s no way to say that I’m right or wrong about finding it funny.
(Unless it’s South Park, in which case I’m right that it’s not funny at all. :D)
:rolleyes: When your show is entering its 11th season you can tell the rest of us what’s funny.
Dude, get a grip-it’s just a tv show.
Oh my god, a post by Guinastasia that adds virtually nothing to the discussion! The mind reels!
Yes, because you were having such an enlightening conversation.
:rolleyes:
Sorry. When it catches up to that fine purveyor of humor “Hee Haw” I’ll show it some respect.
I can’t believe someone is arguing from popularity in an atheism thread. Now that’s comedy gold.
Hey, you think it’s bad being unpopular, try being popular.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that- just ask Issac Hayes.
One question, please. This tangent began when Apos responded to my post with a comment about “having your children taken away from you by the state”. If indeed the state is not taking atheists’ children away from them, why did you feel the need to crawl into my head, interpret my post, and declare it to be hyperbole, but did not feel compelled to respond to Apos in the same way?
It’s not the misreading that bothers me. We all misread from time to time. What bothers me is that you singled out me for you correction while allowing a free pass to the person arguing against me. It is for that that you should appologize.
Because I don’t know whether atheists have their children taken away. I can’t picture atheism as being grounds for a charge of child abuse, but I could see foster children being taken away if the parents are found to be athiest in some of the more wacky places over there.
If Apos can back up his claim, no worries. If it was hyperbole then i’ll post a polite correction to him too. And i’m sorry (both to you and to me, really) for being partisan. Hyperbole is pretty pointless either way.
Considering how very unsubtle South Park humor is, I think it would take someone extremely stupid or extremely insensitive not to realize that their humor might be offensive to someone, or even untruthful, even if one isn’t a member of the group being targeted. If you find this kind of in-your-face humor funny, then it shouldn’t matter which group is being made fun of. And it certainly shouldn’t be an “OMG! They are such bigots!” moment, 10 or 12 years into watching it.
I won’t hijack this thread on this subject anymore, since as you say, I haven’t seen any evidence yet that Eve has done this. (Although I will say that I in no way would put her in either the “extremely stupid” or “extremely insensitive” categories). I was interested in this subject, not because of Eve but because of other people I know who “suddenly” realized that South Park is offensive…because the show finally hit a little too close to home. I think that’s bullshit, quite frankly.
It hasn’t come quite that far, but here’s how close it is: one of the women in my Toastmasters club works for a group home that raises abused children. The home is not a direct government agency; but it is funded entirerly, aside from the odd toys for tots donation, with state funds. Potential employees are of course screened to keep out sexual predators, but also must be Christian. If you are not a Christian, you are not entitled to a paycheck provided by the taxpayers (all the taxpayers - religious and atheist alike), and your love for children is lacking an essential component.
I submit that you may be picturing a caricature. For all the lamentations about the Christian right, the US has plenty of centers of sin and godlessness — from Las Vegas (“Sin City”) to Wall Street (“Greed Is Good”). Maybe you could ask Apos for statistics that show a disproportionate number of atheists losing their children to the state than their numbers in the population at large. If I were concerned about hyperbole myself, I’d ask for exactly that.
I accept your apology.
I disagree. Hyperbole is a time honored rhetorical device. It is no more pointless than irony or alliteration. There’s nothing wrong with a reasonably passionate narrative. If everyone wrote in a literary monotone, there’d be nothing stirring or inspirational to read.
As a matter of curiosity, are atheists in your area expressly prohibited from starting their own state subsidized child-care charities, or have they simply not done so?
This is not how bigotry usually works, Liberal, and I would think you should understand that. For a while, my ex- and I thought about opening up a day-care center, and among the reasons we did not was “When it gets around that we’re hard-core atheists, it will be difficult convincing people to trust us with their kids, and I don’t want to hide who we are forever, and I dont think this country is ready to trust their kids with two people who don’t believe in God.”
But… but… the given from Slithy is that there are atheist parents facing possible discrimination due to Christian staffing. Therefore, assume that there are atheist parents who would bring their kids to you. If there aren’t any, then what’s the complaint?
“Don’t blame Chef-blame the fruity little cult!”
ETA: Lib, the following reasoning:
Was also used to justify separate schools for blacks and whites. “Let them start their own clubs!”
It’s not a good excuse.
Lib, when it’s so easy to take the other guy’s viewpoint, cut it up and sew it into a reversable raincoat, why even bother?
You make a good point, though, and I won’t try to drag it down with the analogy “if you minimum-wage workers don’t like how you’re treated, why don’t you buy your own hamburger chain.”
What I find objectable is your phrase “As a matter of curiosity.” This is a lie because you know as well I do that atheists are not a protected class. That twee little phrase signals your superiority to an issue that you feel beneath you. My point is that freedom of conscience does not exist in the United States. My group-home example is not the issue itself, but simply a proof, and I wouldn’t be suprised if some assistant professor somewhere was denied tenure because he or she included prayer in a student counseling session.
Now maybe you are rightly demanding that we the afflicted plug up the holes our arguments if we are to ever gain respect, and if that’s the case, I thank you. But if your’re just some lonely asshole wasting his intellectual gifts by taking smartass potshots over the internet, just say so. You are entierly justified in lamenting the lack of rigorous honesty in this and all other the threads in which you participate, but please note that I started this thread to lament the lack of civility, an equally indispensable virtue.
Or a good analogy either. 
I’m not suggesting that atheists have their places while Christians have theirs (although that already happens quite naturally, what with churches and everything). I’m just saying that if the problem is that the Christians (presumably) won’t hire atheists for their government subsidized places, then one thing atheists can do about it is start their own government subsidized businesses and not hire Christians. I’m not saying it’s the only relief, or the best solution, or any number of the things you might be imagining.
Then I apologize for my objectionable phrase. My original left it out, but then I began to imagine the probing questions about why I wanted to know, so I stuck it in. At any rate…
…you’re welcome. While it is true that you’re not a protected class, kids change everything. At least, mine did for me. No law, no precept, no ideology or oppression ever prevented me from doing whatever I had to do to provide my child every possible break. (Not that she’s spoiled or anything. ;)) I suspect that you’re much the same way about your child.
One thing I admire about activist atheists (the ones who aren’t looney) is that they’re taking matters into their own hands to effect change. That’s what Guin’s blacks did in the 60s. It wasn’t that government became enlightened and passed the civil rights legislation; it was that people took to the streets and demanded that they be given their rights. Government simply responded when it finally became politically expedient to do so.
It really is possible for theists and atheists to discuss issues with civility. Check out this blogger, for example. His self-examination is an inspiration to us all:
One thing that I’ve always had an issue with in regards to us skeptics, atheists, and such, is that many of us are downright rude. We don’t exactly endear many people with our arguments because they are often laced with contempt with our outrage at the both perceived and real stupidity of our opponents. As one look around this blog will attest to, I count myself among the guilty.
[…snip…]
Another angle, though: it is easy often to rudely dismiss a group, when you look at the collective image presented, as in the way the fundies have a pretty nutjob public persona. It’s a different experience altogether when going one on one, as my current ongoing discussion with Charity is going (here, here, and soon here). When there is an actual human element involved (when they’re all not James Dobsonlike nuts), it changes the tone to a more respectful one. And that is where our problem lies… just as I know that not every fundie is a complete Ted Haggard nutjob, there is still that public image of that for me, which is reinforced just about every time the religious right is in the news because it’s never in the news for saying something with an inkling of rationality to it. And as to our side, I think we run the risk of others, especially those who might be open to our reasoning, being alienated or turned off, thinking we’re all a bunch of nasty people.
As an atheist very-former EQ druid (hail Karana, it’s raining again! :D) I found that hilarious, and I’d rather be a D.U.C.K.