And atheism isn’t common in Europe these days ? And there’s no other atheists who are heads of large organizations, or rich ?
As I recall, most of those were due to incompetence inflicted starvation. Not violence. And given high modern populations and modern weapons, killing many people fast is simply easier. Where have atheists depopulated a continent like the Christians did America ?
And that’s still not a reflection on atheism. What nonexistent atheist principle caused any of that ?
The catholic lies about condoms in Africa kill quite a few. And our war on Iraq had a hefty religious component.
Josef Stalin was a killer. He held blood purges. He annihilated his own countrymen. In body count, I believe he actually surpassed Hitler. He killed off the officer corps in his military, he killed entire towns. He was, to put it mildly, a fucking monster.
Mao had the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guard. I couldn’t even guess how many people he killed, again, his own countrymen. Again, a fucking monster.
Pol Pot was sort of a Communist, wasn’t he? I wonder how many people he killed.
So, don’t claim that the Communists weren’t violent, they were.
But this is silly. It might be a human right, but until the American people agree to treat it as a human right, so what? How are you going to force it on them? Rather, they’re going to force their ideas on you, and you’re outnumbered.
Obviously you don’t see much “winning over” on message board debates, because we actually care enough about the issue to argue about it. Most people don’t. As you say, once gay marriage is legal and the heavens don’t fall, the vast majority of people who are now against gay marriage will forget about the issue. They’ll shrug their shoulders.
The only guarantee of human rights is a citizenry that subscribes to the notion of human rights. You can’t force it on them, any more than you can force democracy in Iraq.
Note that my rejection of the notion of force doesn’t mean compromise. There’s no need to compromise, because same-sex marriage is winning. And it will win because most people turn out not to be unalterable homophobes. You don’t need to convince Rush Limbaugh, you just need to convince the guy who sometimes listens to Rush Limbaugh. And you don’t even really need to convince that guy to support SSM, you just need to convince him that it’s not worth his time and energy to oppose SSM.
I propose a compromise. Both sides brought up Stalin and Hitler together so both sides should put Hitler and Stalin away together. Then you’ll be like big kids!
Well in your own puerile way, you have nailed it, that’s the only argument. Evangelicals will lose something precious to them, that you think is irrelevant. That IS the argument.
So can you please explain to me how, “I want an argument other than my extreme oversimplification of your argument.”, is a rational tactic? I mean really? Why do I have a responsibility to make an argument other than the one I have made? No one else is expected to make an argument other than the one they are making, with people stamping their feet and demanding they make a different argument. Why am I a special case?
Crib notes version: Government laws based solely on religious views are a violation of Seperation of Church and State. Marriage is no exception. If the sole objection to SSM is evangelicals than it’s no better than mandatory prayer in schools or a law that bans halal but allows kosher.
No that’s not a thread about that. That’s just another, ‘let’s poke fun at the evil bigotted Evangelicals’ thread. Just like all the gay marriage threads are. The reason I piss people off is because they really just want those threads to be self-congratulatory echo chambers where everyone agrees that Conservatives are EEEEVVVILLLL, but then I come along, and they can’t make personal attacks like they can make against Magellan, but they really really really want to so badly. They want me to be their Evangelical Pinata that they can beat the living shit out of, in a more rational and open-minded way of course. Remember you are the liberals! You are the open-minded good guys! You’re fighting the good fight against the bigots!
I pissed everyone off because I questioned their self-righteous moral authority, and for no other reason.
You’re right, I take it back. It was in response to Der Trihs and his “Christians are EEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLL.” against, “How many people have been hurt by gay marriage.”
I apologize for getting things out of context. You said, “Christians are EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.”, somewhere else.
No. My entire argument has been that bigotry is an insufficient description of the Evangelical rationale. I have not deviated from that argument one iota.
A question; if you’re pointing out the flaws of generalising motive for a whole group of people (well, two groups, really), shouldn’t you avoid doing so yourself?
I mean, it’s very easy to assume we know why exactly people say and do what they do. I would be very wary of any assumption that gives one motive and one motive alone to an entire group.
I would guess that it is because your argument is so weak. Very weak.
People (not just me) are basically saying “is that all you’ve got?”
We get your argument. We understand it. Fully. We re-state your argument in different forms, not because we don’t understand it, but because it’s hard to believe that you think that it is worth more than a pail of warm spit.
That, and the fact that you argue in a very belligerent fashion make for a bad combination.
Ahh I see. Well what is their reasoning for why a religiously neutral government, by it’s very founding definitions, should listen to them?
If it’s “our book says so and we can’t tolerate any noncompliance with that book” then yes it’s a bigoted reason, and while they’re free to advocate it, the government has no business listening.
Well, over my entire posting history, I probably did say stuff like this, though I’m pretty sure I never felt the need to use that many capital letters to make my point because, y’know, only idiots do that.
