At this point, I don’t really give much of a shit. But he’s being such an ass in this thread that he first managed to hijack it for several pages, and now genuine concerns for his wellbeing are continuing to hijack it. I’m just hoping that people will bring their concerns over here.
If he says he’s having trouble of some sort, and that’s why he’s being such a ridiculous ass, then I’ll have some sympathy for him. Absent such an admission, I gotta figure he’s being a jerk on purpose, and have no sympathy at all.
At any rate, folks, if you gotta argue with the lad over whether it’s okay to criticize religious people qua being religious people, or whatever the hell his point is, could you do it over here?
Libertarian’s been losing my respect lately (not that my respect counts for all-too-much on these boards): From the self-pitting pity thread, to his hijacking of the Rhinestone Jesus thread (His whole “Oh no, you can’t mock someone wearing a hideously gaudy Jesus figurine! It’s bigoted and evil!” routine.) to him calling some poster nearly the worst on the boards due to a fairly routine slip-up, and inciting a pile-on the size of the Sears tower, it seems he’s losing his sense of humor, or has lost it completely.
So Libertarian has apparently taken offense at the perceived practice of targeting people of faith because of their faith? B.F.D. It’s a perfectly reasonable position to take, and certainly doesn’t indicate that anything at all is wrong with him. A thin skin when it comes to matters of religious faith isn’t exactly cause to speculate about somebody’s sanity.
On the other hand, Lib, you may wish to more closely consider whether the insults you perceive are truly aimed at persons and subjects you really wish to defend.
It’s not because of their faith, it’s because they’re nutjobs. Look. I, a flaming athiest, am friends with a number of people who could be described as fundies. Fine. Not all religious people are intolerant and ignorant to comical levels. Not all religious people wear gigantic jeweled idols, gaudily advertising their particular faith. I think we have a right to mock the exceptions, to a certain degree.
It’s a simple case of Venn Diagrams, people. You learned this in second grade! Make two overlapping circles. One represents nutjobs, one represents religious people. The area where they overlap? Religious nutjobs! Those alone are the people that are being mocked.
He has been acting strange in this thread also. I always thought he was a bit “sui generis” but I have not interacted with him lately so I don’t know what, if anything, is happening with him.
No, the mockery of those nutjobs is indisputably due to their faith. Religious faith is a necessary element of being a religious nutjob, is it not? No religion, no mockery–that appears to be what set Lib on edge. And it’s not an unreasonable position for him to be in.
That, plus probably the implication that they are nutjobs because of their religious faith. Though I suppose I should just let Lib speak for himself, rather than speculating on his state of mind.
I’ve never understood this position in the slightest.
On the SDMB people mock nutjobs. When they’re mocking the nutjobs it only seems sensible to mock them on the basis of what makes them squirrel-fodder.
Nobody made fun of Jack Dean Tyler’s shoes. Nobody told FORMERAGENT that his mother dressed him funny. Jack was a circumcision nut and he was roundly mocked on circumcision related issues. FORMER wanted more than anything to be a superspy, so people made fun of his STATE OF THE ART COMPUTER.
There are plenty of religous people on the boards who don’t get poked at continually. The problem comes when you become unable to separate the good from the nuts.
Okay, fine. But nowhere was the implication made that there were no atheist nutjobs. However, they weren’t the subject of that thread. It’s as simple as that.
I have to echo Coldfire’s concerns in the other thread – Libertarian has seemed, I dunno, increasingly edgy and distracted in recent times. I was wondering whether it was just because I was misremembering his older posting style, but I’m not so sure that I am.
However, Lib has insisted that everything is fine at home, and until my Magic Telepathy Beanie comes in the mail I’ll have to accept that.
Ugghhh sailor
is “There’s nothing as strange as folks.” the new P.C. rendition for
“There’s nowt as queer as folk.”
Or is it just a local variant from Washington dc ?
I do agree with the observation that Lib has been wearing the hair shirt a bit too much recently.
I disagree. It’s an unreasonable position because the thread was clearly about poking fun at those whose religious faith led them to do what, in the posters’ views, are silly and nutty things. If the thread was about nutjobs in general without the OP’s decidedly stated preference, then sure: Libertarian would have a point.
If he wanted to start his own thread about laughing at nutjobs without regard to their religion, then he should have done so. What he did is akin to barging into a “Why we love our cats!” thread and demanding why no time was given to praising the dogs of the world–and then getting huffy when the other participants point out that the thread is about cats.
Now, admittedly, I didn’t read the whole thread, but I didn’t see anyone painting an entire religion’s adherents with the same brush as they were coloring the individual wackos. If someone did, then–once again–I believe Lib would have a perfect reason to jump in an object to the generalization. Which he didn’t; he decided, instead, to take offense where none was intended.
I really couldn’t tell. I have not heard it or used it in ages. I might have heard it that way or I might just have remebered it that way. It just came to my mind like that.
Thanks sailor admittedly nowt as queer as folks is a very Northern English phraise. I do hope it doesn’t become PC-erized. Since it a) has nowt to do with homosexuality, and b) assigns the quality ‘queerness’ to all people equally. Its meaning for those unaware of this phrase, is that nothing is so strange as the things that are done by normal people.
I get the feeling that Lib is being contrary for the sake of being contrary. There is no doubt that he is a bright guy, with a considerable intellect and talent for debating. It looks a bit like that has gone to his head.
He seems to be trying to prove he can debate against any point, no matter how far fetched the turf is that he chooses to stake out. I expect an argument for the mass execution of fluffy newborn kittens any time now.
This seems to be a recent development so I can only hope that it is a phase that will soon pass. I would ask Lib to read the common sense explanation by Skip as to why everyone is annoyed. Just because you can concieve of an intellectual reason to be offended doesn’t mean you have to take the first ticket on the ninny train.
First, minty, thanks for addressing it here rather than in the other thread. I’ve got no problem with arguing the point as long as it’s not as a hijack; even though I think the point is transparently fallacious, it’s debatable.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to take offense at targeting SOME people of faith because of their faith.
Either it’s okay to target people, or it’s not. Lib certainly wasn’t arguing that we couldn’t target people at all; in fact, he nominated certain people for the thread.
If it’s okay to target people, either it’s okay to target them for their beliefs and actions, or it’s not. Lib certainly wasn’t arguing that we can’t target people for their beliefs and actions; indeed, the atheists he nominated for the thread were nominated for their beliefs and actions.
If we can target people for their beliefs and actions, either religious beliefs and religiously-motivated actions are an exception to this policy, or their not. THIS is where, near as I can tell, Lib disagrees with me: he seems to think that targeting people for religious beliefs and religiously-motivated actions is somehow different from targeting them for any other beliefs or actions.
At least, that’s the best I can figure from his attitude. And I think that’s stupid. Religious beliefs are not, well, sacrosanct: if we have a secular society in which a diverse array of religious beliefs are allowed, then one aspect of that is that no specific subset of beliefs is free from criticism.
As I said over and over, threads on other types of nutjobs would be fine – especially if they were types of nutjobs that cause real problems. Threads on communist nutjobs? No problem! Threads on sexist nutjobs? Go for it! Threads on Democratic nutjobs? Knock yourself out!
That’s not good enough for Libertarian, so he ignored my posts pointing this out – every single one of them. Near as I can tell, such posts don’t feed his martyr complex, so it’s easiest for him to pretend they don’t exist.
There is nothing reasonable about taking offense at targeting some people of faith because of their faith, while you’re willing to target other people because of non-religious beliefs. Unless you can show me that religious beliefs ought to be in a special category, I consider that argument intellectually bankrupt.
And that’s not even going into libertarian’s deceitful method of arguing his point. That’s a whole nother post or three.
