Many? I don’t think so.
Funny, that sounds like exactly what I said, only rephrased to dilute the implication. Well, one man’s “mistake” is another man’s “making shit up then backtracking when called on it”, I guess
If you think I thought *that *little “typo” ended the debate, you’re not keeping up. It was the larger point of Marx’s intent that you failed at. The misattribution? That’s just gravy, man.
No, but it does mean it has fuck all to do with Marxism.
Translation: Got caught out making shit up. You didn’t cite *any *“sources”, IIRC. So forgive me if I wouldn’t take your word for what colour the sky is outside.
How soon we forget - it wasn’t the mistake I return to, it was the fact that you tried to pass it off as a “typo”, like your fingers just slipped and made all those extra letters, rather than, you know, you just not knowing what you’re talking about. What I hate is you trying to pass yourself off as someone who actually knows anything about religion (apparently, you “took some classes”:rolleyes:). Dude, you’re no Diogenes. Hell, you’re not even a kanicbird. Him, I got some respect for.
One drop raises the sea. Evidence for incompetence is evidence, no matter how you try and pass it off. *Habitually *“making mistakes” is a sign of idiocy, not clumsiness.
This would be a valid point if Christianity didn’t actually have texts that called for the violence, unlike your lame attempt at pinning Stalin’s atrocities on his Marxism (and so, by association, his atheism)
There’s nothing irrational about hating or fearing an ideology that is responsible for so much death and hatred - even today (I do live in Africa. Ask me about what I think of the Pope sometime). You trying to pin an unconnected half-century-old atrocity on atheism today is what’s irrational.
And it would be a wonderful, valid point, and I would be the first to agree with you, if the ideology didn’t contain the motivation for the murders. But until Christians excise Leviticus from their Bible outright (rather than selectively apply it), you don’t get my support. There are lots of sects of Christianity I have no beef with. Quakers, Unitarians, the sane half of the Anglican Church. Hell, I was OK with Mormons until Prop.8, and was willing to believe that Scott Card’s bigotry was his alone… But Christianity as a whole? I ascribe the blame to it that it should get.
Stupid is as stupid does. It’s stupid to post lies and misinformation when there are links people can follow to see the truth of a position, just as an example.
Cite where I misquoted you? You do know the difference between “said” and “allege”, right, idiot?
I know you think you’re being ironic, but I don’t see it. I see you sinking to your natural level, like the lying halfwit you are.
Still waiting for a response to my question above, “Ms.” Troll.
Doubt you’ll get it. That troll is too chickenshit to make one argument against gay marriage because she’s knows it’d get ripped to shreds for being the bigoted ignorant drivel it is.
Instead the stupid bigot would rather a class of people be oppressed ‘just because’.
She has no useful debating skills. Ignorant drivel is her only game. She’s not even a good troll.
As I said before, I don’t think it actually gives two shits about gay people. It just likes to piss off lefties. That’s all it’s here for. The only posts it’s ever made that weren’t snarking at lefties were complaining about the Pit rules, usually to try to get the mods to crack on a lefty who snarked back.
In this case it was “making shut up then backtracking when called on it.”, is another man’s, “repeating of a common though slightly inaccurate trope.”, but the other man won’t let it go because he’s a prick with a stick up his ass and has an irrational hate-crush on the first man as can be seen by his over-reliance on nitpicking at trivial things specifically with one person in a way that he doesn’t do for the thousands of other mistakes made daily by others on the same message board.
There is no way you are doing this because it’s not a personal thing. I offended your little atheist feelings one day, and you with the rest of the atheist posse follow me around and bring up irrelevant minutiae in order to veil personal attacks. There are about a half a dozen of you that do this, and it all started because I ripped on atheism. You as well as they are incredibly angry that I am not some simple Evangelical, even though hilarity ensues when one of you tries to posit that.
But…thanks for making my case for me. You done good.
Pwn noob is your level. It’s not meant to be ironic. You’re trying to pwn me in an epeen contest. Acting like I am sinking to my natural level is stupid. I am sinking to YOUR level. Keep waving your e-peen, it shows much more more mature you are.
Au Revoir.
Pwn noob.
It’s quite incredible how many stupid people you seem to be surrounded by mswas. You must just attract dim-witted stupid morons like a flame shining in the darkness attracts moths.
Pretty much anyone who does not agree with you is stupid! Imagine that!
Please do keep calling other posters who disagree with you stupid. I"m sure that it is an effective tactic that will show the world your complete superiority.
No, I just have a fan club of particularly dimwitted sorts who have the same issue with me stuck in their craw.
Not at all. Tomndebb calls me on shit all the time, is often correct. He’s not stupid at all. Cosmosdan, Polycarp, **Voyager **disagree with me on a fairly regular basis. None of them are stupid. **SentientMeat **is the poster who I miss the most on this board, I don’t agree with him on some very fundamental issues, the guy is fucking brilliant and has schooled me on many occasions. No, it’s the morons who nitpick at stupid bullshit and care nothing about the actual point but focus on irrelevant minutiae, or who think that their opinion outweighs the evidence a la, 'if I don’t care about what is being lost then nothing is being lost.", that I think are stupid.
I don’t call others who disagree with me stupid. Just the posse that follows me around harping on stupid inconsequential minutiae. I wouldn’t even count you in this category except sometimes you feel the need to join the herd. I don’t even really think Bryan Ekers is stupid. Sometimes he’s frustrating because he gets my point and then argues with it anyway. For instance in this debate I was just fine with the notion that you think that what I was saying is being lost is not of enough value to be worthy of consideration. That wasn’t what people were trying to do, they were trying to harangue me into AGREEING with them, that it was nothing of value. I perfectly understood from the start that it was something my opponents wouldn’t value. **MrDibble **isn’t really stupid overall, it’s just his hate-crush that turns him into a babbling idiot who usually takes the most inconsequential part of my post and focuses on it trying to debunk it as though me citing a source incorrectly invalidates the whole postion. Watch, you’ll hear someone else quote Marx saying religion is the opiate of the masses and MrDibble won’t say a fucking thing. It’s personal, there is no reason for it, as can be seen he didn’t even disagree with my fundamental point that it’s not the utopian ideology that causes people to kill, just that some people are murderous bastards.
I don’t trawl the board for mistakes. I happen to hang out in religion debates and look - there you are, spouting off “common tropes” like gospel. I disagree with *lots *of other posters on religion - Lib, for one. We have rolling fights, but I don’t even remember the details of most of them. You don’t see me regularly get up in their business because *they *are not shitty liars who confuse our debates with bullshit “facts”…hell, even kanic, lost in his own interpretation of things, at least has recourse to Bible verse. You, you make shit up as you go along - and then use that made-up shit to justify your beliefs. But when called on the made-up nature of your beliefs’ backing, do you rethink them? Not a chance. I’ve seen you spouting off that completely unjustified Syncretist Universal Monotheism shit in a current thread, even though the legs it stands on are made of so much mud.
It’s totally personal. I don’t like you because you lie in debates, how is that not personal? Did I say “nothing personal?”
I have a posse? Cool. Am I the sheriff? Or the mysterious drifter? Wait, can I be the callow youth who learns the value of comradeship just before I die?
What posse? Just a little paranoid, huh? Not only do I have a “hate crush” (I can’t be alone in seeing an undercurrent of homophobia coming off that), but I’m part of a sinister Gang Of Six who follow you around and pick at you? Up your meds, loony.
For me, it started when you lied, liar.
I know you’re not an Evangelical. At least they have a relatively consistent dogma. You just have some sort of New Christian grab-bag.
Keep repeating it. I’m *sure *that will make it true…someday.:rolleyes:
It’s not language I habitually use on the 'Dope. It’s all you, baby.
No, I’m trying to get you to stop lying in debates, or at least check your “facts” before spouting off. If you did that, I’d have no problem with you. I like some of your other stances, like on urbanism, for instance. But when it comes to religion, you suck at facts.
“My level” has included insults like “simp”(simpleton), “idiot”, “fuckwit”, “moron” and “liar”. Where, from that, you would infer that my level is 4chan, I don’t know. Project much?
This can easily be shown to be utter bullshit. Liar. And paranoid nutbar, apparently.
So did Clinton 
Just keeping the ball rolling
yay.
Only if we take as given that when the founders said “their Creator” they meant “God”. I think that for some we can be pretty sure they meant the Christian God, for others the meaning is more murky–like George Washington’s use of “Providence”–and for others we can be pretty sure they meant “Nature”.
“Their Creator” is one of those nice turns of phrase that can mean anything you like. I believe that the creator of mankind was the process of evolution by natural selection. You believe that the creator of mankind was Jesus. But we both have no problem assenting to the phrase.
Who said you should sit on your hands? Who said you shouldn’t demonstrate?
But the civil rights acts of the 50s and 60s weren’t forced on the majority. They were enacted into law by majority vote. It’s just not true that the majority of people back then were in favor of keeping Jim Crow. If they were, why did their legislators vote for civil rights? You think the politicians in the 1960s were more enlightened than your average voter? More senators and representatives voted for the civil rights bills than voted against, and that’s why they became law.
The demonstrations weren’t examples of a minority forcing the majority to accept civil rights. They were an example of a minority convincing the majority to accept civil rights.
There’s a contradiction in that at the beginning of the paragraph you claim “majority vote” enacted civil rights legislation and later on say it was that action of “senators and representatives”.
Regionally, there was not widespread support of civil rights legislation. Sure, it might have sailed through in the northern states (maybe), but resistance in the south caused a major political shift leading in no small part to today’s red state/blue state dichotomy.
I don’t know offhand of any major civil rights legislation that was passed by a plebiscite, as your post suggests. Look at the writings of George Wallace and decide if he (and his supporters) thought the legislation was being forced.
Sure, “majority vote” of representatives. A minority of representatives didn’t force it on the majority who were opposed. And these guys had to go back and face the voters.
It wasn’t like civil rights was desperately unpopular but was rammed through anyway. By the time the actual legislation got passed, it was a majority position–just not in the south. If you exclude non-voters like black people. Nowadays you’ll have to search hard to find an openly segregationist politician, because nowadays black people can vote.
So yeah, it was forced on the south. But it wasn’t forced on the country as a whole. When we get national gay marriage then we’ll be forcing gay marriage on some people, but those people will be a minority. And as of June 1, 2009 gay marriage is still not supported by a majority of voters, not even in California. Who knows what the picture will be in 2010 or 2011, since views are changing fast.
I can only suggest you not use phrases like “the majority of people” in paragraphs when you mean to say “the majority of elected officials”.
It was desperately unpopular in some parts of the U.S., to the point of sustained violence tacitly (or openly) approved by local officials. And now you have a similar resistance to gay marriage, except it’s not concentrated in any particular corner of the country. I doubt, of course, we’ll see gay-marriage proponents battered by firehoses or chased by police dogs, but no matter what, somebody somewhere is going to feel that the issue was forced.
By the time the dam really burst, the principle of equality had been largely accepted, but the changes required to put that principle into action were resisted. Mustn’t go too fast, leads to social disruption. Of course they should be allowed to vote, but the Federal gov’t mustn’t interfere with state election business. Naturally, they can go wherever they like, but a black man in a white neighborhood? can’t blame a cop for being suspicious.
A lot of people thought they were for racial equality, but didn’t look at the price tag.
Well, considering that this is what they said in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted, I think that is a pretty safe bet.
But I am pleased to see that we all agree that the idea that God exists, and is the source of all rights, has been enshrined in the laws of the USA.
Regards,
Shodan