The day… the second … you think Der Trihs makes the best argument for your side, you’ve lost.
Unless you are on the opposite side.
To be fair, that would piss me off too. When my grandmother was telling me about a seance she went to and I tried to explain that no, I really did not believe that the random Danish guy there who could tell her that there were two red houses next to each other where she grew up was a genuine actual psychic, she said cheerfully that all that was just a mask I put up. That made me royally pissed.
Not even then.
Daniel
At first, they banned those who used the world “apologist”, but I did not speak up because I did not use that word.
Then they banned those who were apoligists for the apologists, but I did not speak up, because that would be gonzomax, and who the fuck cares?
Then they quit banning people, and since all we lost were Der Trihs and gonzomax, it was pretty cool.
Damn, that’s funny.
I think he says stuff for shock value. It might resemble what he actually thinks and feels, but he pours a little extra drama on it before he serves it to us.
Nah. I think he’s perfectly sincere, he’s just being an asshole about it.
I think i’d agree with Priceguy. That’d piss me off, too - who would you be to claim not only greater knowledge of myself than I have, but also that i’m lying to myself? I think it’s something you could understandably be annoyed at without it hinting at secret leanings. After all, aren’t you a libertarian, not a liberal? 
Anyway, Der Trihs is a nut. He is occasionally right, but the times when he’s right are as grains of sand against a mountain of his wrongness. I think we pretty much have to suspect that there will be a Pit thread every few months or so for him. I wouldn’t be for his banning, much for the same reasoning as Starving Artist; as much as **Der Trihs’ ** jerkosity shines above the rest of us mere minijerks, it would set a worrisome precedent.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t be pissed off. Someone asked whether he would be pissed off being called a theist, and I answered based on what I’d seen, namely that yes he would because in fact he was. He clearly is not an atheist; God is far to important to him. An anti-theist maybe, but not an atheist.
Ibid.
This is specious. An astronomer might really, really hate astrology because she thinks that it confuses people about the significance of teh stars, and furthermore leads to them asking her idiotic questions at cocktail parties. She might inveigh against astrologers at every chance. That doesn’t mean she believes in astrology, just that she thinks astrology is a dangerous and annoying superstition.
I think Der holds a similar belief about God. It’s not that he believes in God; rather, he believes in belief in God. He knows folks hold that belief, and he thinks it’s an incorrect belief that causes a great deal of harm. I disagree with him, but identifying his position as a theist position (or anti-theist) is missing the point: his opinions aren’t about god but about religious people.
Daniel
Probably not. I would still offer.
That was me, and the question wasn’t whether it would piss him off - it’s clear that it would - but whether it would (“should” may be better) be considered an insult. Is it the intent of the speaker or the attitude of the receiver that determines what is and what isn’t an insult?
As for Der Trihs’s atheism, I have to agree with Left Hand of Dorkness. Der Trihs believes in belief and finds it harmful. It does not mean he shares the belief. If it does, I’m a believer.
What would annoy me is someone telling me what I really believed based on my pseudononymous postings on a message board. It wouldn’t matter if someone was telling me that I really believe in God, or that I really like disco. It’s still a bold statement coming from someone who isn’t my therapist, SO, or very close friend.
I’ll second, or I guess third that. I also believe that religion is a vastly negative force in our lives. I don’t want them rounded up in the gulags, but I do want them looked down upon like loons. That doesn’t make me a theist. I’m no more anti-god than I am anti-unicorn. I just don’t want unicorn believers to walk around thinking they should be respected for willfully believing in rubbish.
Nice? Nice? Boy, you Aussies sure know how to hurt a guy…
Yeah, so far as I know, but it seems a rather obvious construct, so Shirley somebody else must have thought of it.
Liberal has tossed that one at me too, once. I take it merely as evidence of the pervasiveness of his difficulty separating his beliefs from others.
Whereas I think that religion is sometimes a tremendously evil force in our lives (Taliban), and it’s sometimes a tremendously beneficial force in our lives (St. Joseph’s hospital). Sure, some of those good people would do good things without religion–but then, some of those evil people would do evil things without religion, too. So I think it’s sometimes good and sometimes bad. I guess that makes me agnostic.
Daniel
Seems to me that the issue of post reporting and questions about poor moderation come from conservatives, notably Shodan. I take it as evidence of weak character - you know, the whiny ass titty baby personality. “Everybody is against me. Everyone is out to get me. Life is so unfair!” Shodan is in fact, very much a one note Johnny on this matter.
As to it being all of our responsibility, I would suspect that you’ve never chosen to report an offensive post by a conservative, despite being against hardened partisanship yourself. I’ve just chosen to never report anyone elses posts ever, because I would feel like a little paste eating simp. “Ummmmm! I’m telling!” was never part of my repetoire as a child. Why start now?