Crap! When will I ever learn to log burundi off before posting? She’s really much less frothing than me, honest.
Daniel
What what what?
Libertarian has a long history of losing his shit every once in a while. What happened after that is he apologizes and takes a break, if I remember correctly.
Don’t ask me for cites, because I can’t make the search function work. Maybe someone else will remember some of Lib’s previous flameouts.
I don’t think the developments are recent. I’ve thought him nuts for some time now.
I’m not even a theist, but I have to agree with Libertarian.
Having a thread devoted to making fun of religious nutjobs is bad for a few reasons:
- Non-religious people can be nutjobs in things related to religion. Therefore the restriction to slamming religious people cannot be justified by saying it is because you want to make fun of people who are nutjobs in something related to religion.
Lib illustrated this point by noting several non-religious people who still find a way to be nutjobs in religious matters. If everybody had just accepted this fact, as they should have, the hijack would never have happened.
2. As Lib correctly noted, having a thread devoted to religious nutjobs tends to turn into making fun of the belief itself.
He used the condom example, and he is… yes… correct. Note: I am not saying that the church’s position on condoms is correct - it isn’t, in my opinion.
BUT it does not make them nutjobs. Because it DOES logically follow from their beliefs, namely the belief that you shouldn’t be having casual sex, and sex should be related to procreation.
You accuse Lib of being disingenuous, but I say that you are disingenuous to say that, because someone might misinterpret the church to be saying that people should have non-procreation sex without condoms, when they CLEARLY have said no such thing, that that makes the church nutjobs.
No. It it clear that what is really being called “nutjoblike” is the beliefs themselves.
As I tried to point out, though, even in those cases, it is at least a little suspicious that the qualifier is necessary. If what pisses you off is the nutjobbiness, then your criticism could stand utterly alone on that. It’s the addition of the qualifier, and the implication that it is somehow a significant and necessary component to the prejorative, that seems to be in questionable judgement. If someone’s being black isn’t relevant to them being an asshole, then I would probably feel a little uncomfortable if someone kept mentioning, while mentioning that person A was an asshole, if they kept bringing up the fact that they were also black. “Religious” is as broad, if not more broad, a category than an ethnicity.
So there are definately grounds to question the sincerity of the “no offense to religious people in general” defense.
Well said, Apos.
If Libertarian has a history of losing his shit from time to time, I say that’s a healthy sign. We probably wouldn’t notice it except for the fact that he is usually not in such a state.
Nobody gets his shit together once and for all. It’s just Libertarians turn to get pissed. He says he’s okay and I have no reason not to believe him.
Sorry, I’m not really sure what the issue is. Is it because the posts he quoted weren’t ‘fundie’ nutjobs? Can’t see how anyone on this board would ever get the idea that people classify all ‘fundies’ as nutjobs, although I have yet to see one person stand up to a post like this:
(bolding mine)
Ya, I can see how he’s out of place. I don’t defend him, I don’t know him. But I don’t believe any of his posts in that thread are worth a pitting.
oh, the whole thing is bolded, so that isn’t mine…only “the religios nuts their place”
Forgot about those html codes. And while I’m on it, if anyone would perhaps link me to a place to show why all names of posters are bolded when talked about, I’d appreciate it. Sorry about the minor hijack.
Well, Libertarian might be a little pissy with folk who frequent a board dedicated to fighting ignorance yet are careless in how they present their thoughts and opinions – careless to the point of appearing ignorant not only of the topics under discussion but of any modicum of civility in discourse, or of any ability to examine their own motives or rationality.
Can’t blame him for being pissy under such conditions. And I certainly don’t take his terseness as a sign of anything being wrong with him. Rather I’d see it as attempt to cut through white noise.
DanielWithrow, this thread seems like a very petty attempt to cast aspersions about the mental health of a fellow poster. And you seem like an asshat.
Oh, nonsense, Lib seems fine. I don’t get to chat much with him these days since I prefer GD and he prefers the Pit, but in the thread mentioned he is doing what he has always done best: Bursting the bubble of dyed-in-the-wool atheists who think that their beliefs are some kind of universal “default” which only the credulous and unsophisticated stray far from. Now, I agree that his usual sniper-like approach became a little scattergun in that thread but, let’s face it, it would otherwise have become just another Funny Fundy Hour, and here we are all talking about it - isn’t that what this forum is about? Were it not for theists of his wit and erudition, this particular atheist for one would find these boards an arid landscape indeed.
However, he always did have a little impatience in sorting out his personal wheat from the chaff. This is perhaps why he prefers the Pit: one might say it lends itself to more honest dialogue where he can decide more quickly which members or threads might be worth investing time in. If this be the case, then I would suggest that by necessity he would come across as a little more tetchy than in his long, earnest theses in Great Debates. I also suspect that, as a long-term member, he might decry the fact that as a Board becomes more popular then by similar necessity those genuinely worthwhile threads and members become more difficult to find.
Still, lest I be accused of kissing his bum (BritEng slg. - he does not possess a homeless person to my knowledge) I shall bow out in case he feels like bothering with this thread, but don’t hold your breath.
Questioning an opponent’s sanity or mental fitness in order to make a point is an age-old rhetorical vice and logical fallacy. It’s a special ad-hominem designed to distract an audience and reproject an argument, so I’m not paying any attention to the taunting from Daniel, Coldfire, Vorlon, and the like.
Dopers are smart enough to know what’s going on with that.
The only thing I really care to say here in defense of myself is that I believe that I have consistently demonstrated a willingness to listen to reason and admit error. To help illustrate my point, here is one recent example. In that thread, I had defended Dogface against accusations that he had engaged in “hate speech”. I was very adamant about my position, even in the face of a whole gang of taunters — that is, until Andros posted.
As I explained in the thread linked by Daniel, a rhetorical gang bang does not constitute a compelling argument. But I explained here, here, and here — in quite some detail — why the argument made by Andros was indeed compelling, and why I found it necessary to change my mind.
I admitted my error there, and apologized to everyone whom I had bludgeoned with my bluntness, including Lynn Bodoni, whose decision to admonish Dogface I had questioned. I apologized to her publicly and privately as well by e-mail.
If you want to convince me that the thread about religious nutjobs is not a smear on people of faith in general, with its onerous requirement that the nutjobs BE people of faith, then you may do so by making a reasonable argument. When I see one, I’ll admit my error, change my mind, and apologize as appropriate.
Meanwhile, I’d also like to take this opportunity to admit that indeed I’ve been known to fly off the handle and “lose it” in a self-destructive fit of emotion. But I’ve grown from those experiences, learned from my mistakes, and moved on. Such a scenario is not likely to happen again. It is a mistake to pigeon-hole someone and not allow for change or growth.
So, yes, I’m fine. If you oppose the point I’m making about the bigotry of that thread, then argue against it. But don’t do it by calling me crazy or by pretending that my argument is so bizarre that I must have fallen off the deep end. Do it with logic and reason. Do it, for example, by showing how it differs conceptually from a thread at Stormfront titled “Jewish nutjobs” or “Black nutjobs” or “Gay nutjobs”.
But attempts to bully me into changing my mind by telling me to take my meds won’t work. And it won’t make me explode and leave the board, either. 
Glad to hear it, friend.
Dunno what put you off GD, but it would be good to see you there any time.
Except, of course, that I would wager that many of the atheists who post in this sort of thread are similarly attempting to “burst the bubble of dyed-in-the-wool Christians who think that their beliefs are some kind of universal ‘default’ which only the credulous and unsophisticated stray far from.” And even though the “atheist left” (to continue to borrow the phrase) may (may) be in the majority here, it’s a tiny minority in the big, bad world outside, and such dyed-in-the-wool Christians are far too common (as I’m sure you know). It’s not an excuse for abuse, but nevertheless it’s no wonder that the odd potshot is taken here. **
That, I agree with wholeheartedly. Who wants to listen to only one side of an argument?**
Actually, that would explain the disconnect I expressed above – I was thinking of old GD threads.
[Upon preview]
Hi, Lib.
I suppose there’s no point in attempting to explain the difference between highlighting religious excess and merely bashing religion, although I do understand that not everyone on either side of the debate sees that difference. I’ve not been to Stormfront, but as it’s already been mentioned that no one would have any objection to your starting a “gay nutjobs” or a “black nutjobs” thread here (Jewish nutjobs, of course, falling under “religious nutjobs” already) highlighting those whose excessively irrational behavior stems from the qualifying factor, it’s hardly a counterargument.
**You may have a point, you may not.
december was frequently accused of being, or dismissed as being, a troll.
Collounsbury was frequently accused of being an arrogant jerk who wouldn’t follow the rules.
milroyj is frequently dismissed as being really stupid.
Lots of posters who appear for a short time and disappear get accused of being racists, or jerks, or trolls, or spammers.
It could be that in all these cases, the accusations were merely employed as rhetorical devices designed to distract the audience, or discredit the argument by discrediting the poster.
It could alternatively be that the accusations were not mere rhetorical devices, but honest and accurate assessments based on the posters’ behaviours.
See where this is headed?
I really have no idea whether you’ve stopped taking your medication, or indeed whether you’ve ever taken any at any time in the past, for any reason whatsoever.
But I do think that you’ve recently been acting crazier than a shithouse rat. You have long, lucid periods, and then episodes where you, as you say “lose it”. This looks like one of them.
It’d be a mistake to think that people call you crazy just to counter an argument that you’re making, or do it in order to provoke an episode. That may happen from time to time, of course, but when it’s suddenly coming from all sides, maybe you should stop and look for a deeper reason.
You can respond to this or not, as you see fit.
Here ya go.
(The odd nature of user names makes it helpful that we differentiate, say, the user named december from the month of the calendar named December.)
How about this: The mere fact that you refer to religious nutjobs implies that they are non-identical, thus implying that to the speaker, religious and nutjob overlap only in specific areas.
Desmo
It isn’t coming from “all sides”. It is coming from the one side that disagrees with me about the bigotry in the religious nutjob thread. In fact, you yourself have claimed responsibility for starting it.
Sentient
Thank you, Sentient. But these days, I see little difference between Debates and the BBQ Pit. I think that the moderation there is bullyish and jejune, so I might as well stay here.
You aren’t helping yourself out, here.
You’ve referred to a post of mine in an entirely different thread (about manhattan, which in turn refers to another entirely different thread about dogface). Neither have any direct connection with the religious nutjob thread.
And I didn’t claim responsibility for starting it, I said that you were being unfair in blaming Lynn for starting it.