He was also told four years ago to knock it off with the Polycarp stalking. By an admin. […shrug…]
I’m glad I could help you.
However what? My parents are very nice people, misguided though they are.
What challenges do you think I have made of the wife beating sort?
That’s condescending. When you say stuff like that, it really makes me want to be condescending back. If I recall, in our last exchange, you didn’t like that none too much at all.
We’ve never been fond of “let’s you and him fight,” the popular board game indulged elsewhere. We reduce or downright eliminate it here whenever possible.TubaDiva
Tell me more.
You can ask me about both if you want.
Jodi, I have to think that you are not a very good lawyer. You arguing about things that really don’t matter and you aren’t very good at it.
I thought the technical name for it is argumentum ad rectum, but I could be mistaken.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, the way this thread is running, (and the way badchad’s last attempt went), I’m not sure I’m allowed to include either of these, either.
I’m thinking of starting a GD thread about it, but in essence, I think the fundamentalists have as much power as they do because the liberal-to-moderates allow it. If there were no liberal or moderate Christians, the fundamentalists would just be another crazy cult nobody paid much attention to.
I don’t need to. In the case of Polycarp, you’ve articulated your motivations and explained your actions very clearly. Based on your own statements, I think targeting him was rude, gross and irrational, and no amount of further explanation on your part will change my mind.
I also understand why you stick to fundamentalist sources; you believe that if you can show people what their holy book “really” says and stands for, they will realize they’ve been inventing a new religion and slapping some kind of historical validity on it, just like Gardener did with Wicca. I think it’s a bum tactic and you’d be better off showing people how the sources they wish to use to justify their revisions are not as historically accurate as the ones you rely on. I don’t even know if you can do that, but if you can, that’s what you should do.
If losing two points is not the straw that broke the camel’s back for a badchad banning, then I don’t know what else could be.
Ensign Edison, are you reading/have read Sam Harris’s End of Faith?
No, FordPrefect, but I’ll look for it now, thanks.
I am reading it now (sporadically), and it is quite enjoyable. The reason I asked was, “I think the fundamentalists have as much power as they do because the liberal-to-moderates allow it.” is one of the points he makes in the book.
The book may be obsolete. The power that evangelicals (not necessarily fundamentalists) might have had, which I believe was facilitated in large part by a ratings conscious media (nutjobs make more interesting guests than moderates), appears to be waning. Even the GOP is losing its hold over them.
When same-sex couples can get married legally, we can talk about what’s obsolete.
Laying the blame for that soley on fundamentalists is a mistake.
Last year, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force returned a contribution made by the Democratic Party because Howard Dean, as DNC chairman, has failed to support gay rights. I suspect that part of the reason why Dean is so shy about the issue is the overwhelming opposition to gay marriage by blacks, who of course represent a huge block of Democratic Party support. Appearances at black churches have always been a mainstay of Democratic presidential campaigns. And don’t forget that Bill Clinton had promised unequivocally to promote rights for gays, including gays in the military. The policy he actually inacted resulted in more gays discharged than ever before.
Attacking fundamentalists on account of gays being unable to marry is like sitting around in filth and complaining that the neighbors need to clean up their house.
Yea, blame the democrats instead.
You should read the book, I don’t think that is the claim Harris makes. His argument that religious moderates (of all faiths) empower the fundamentalists by not being a bulwark against the extremism. He claims that the moderates can’t argue against the extremists using spiritual terms since they both believe in the same God. The fundamentalist views the moderate as weak and/or heretical. The moderate can’t argue from a Biblical (or Qu’ranic (sp?)) perspective because the fundamentalist will likely have a better grasp of the Bible, but will tend to a more literal interpretation.
I am not saying Harris is right, and I am only 50 odd pages in, but he raises an interesting question(s) about tolerance of faith.
I think that’s a jump to the other extreme. There’s plenty enough blame to go around for everybody. Part of the reason that progress cannot be made on this issue is that people care more about blame than about progress.
But that’s a false claim. I used spiritual terms to convince my sister, a fundamentalist Christian, that her opposition to gay marriage is morally wrong. She no longer opposes it.
That was part of my point, Lib, though if you’re implying that I’m not taking enough personal responsibility in getting my own equal rights, I cordially invite you to stuff it and set it on fire. If by “filth” you mean “the Democrats”, right. I’m not sitting in it, so the analogy doesn’t apply.
Part of the problem is that almost the only people who openly say “I am against gay marriage” are fundamentalists, but they’re obviously far from the only people who feel that way. I believe some part of the vast majority of more moderate Christians are hiding in the shadow of the fundamentalists to avoid confrontations they should be making.
Why does badchad still have “member” under his name and not “banned”? 