Is it better to say Those who argue against the validity of another religion’s rules for their own personal tastes are “sanctimonious assholes”?
Or can I say, “Who the hell are you to tell 13 million people that they’re wrong in their self-identification? That sounds like a sanctimonious asshole to me.”
Are we allowed to call people racist? Anti-Semitic? Islamophobic? Ethnocentric? Are we allowed to call people not religious because they don’t fit into “our” molds?
Am I allowed to say:*
*
All religions are stupid
All religious people are stupid
Religion is based on fantasy
People who are religious can’t think critically*
Jews are racist*
or is that kosher since it’s a thinly veiled direct insult to whomever you are debating?
I’m a n00b; educate me on the rules, plz. :smack: And I’m not sure if I can respond to a mod in here or if I have to take it to the ATMB. I’m not arguing your ruling; I’m just a little confused I did not use the verb ‘to be’ in my statement. I shall watch my semantics. It’s just easier to edit myself if I understand the interpretations of the rules.
There are plenty of black women who get angry at black men dating white women. Is that racist or just a desire to preserve your culture? :o
I also don’t find black men attractive. Or Chinese. Or Japanese. Or guys with blonde hair. I’m attracted to olive skinned guys with curly hair, as anyone can see with previousboyfriends. :smack:
I’m not picking at you. You just got my brain train going. (:
Ah, didn’t catch that on preview.
Personally, despite the OP’s awful argument, I felt that the distinction he was trying to draw was useless. Whether it was bigoted or racist didn’t really matter, as it’s no better to hate gays than it is to hate blacks, but he obviously preferred the rhetorical impact of calling Jews elitist racists.
In the Pit you can call a poster an anti-Semite.
In GD you can (generally) state that an argument is anti-semitic, subject to moderator injunctions which may or may not be present in a specific thread.
Then again, I may be slightly wrong as the OP is evidently allowed to call me a “dishonest debater” and made several negative comments about my behavior and integrity rather than my argument… but yes, those are generally the rules.
General insults against groups of persons are not encouraged, but they may be permitted if asserted as a position in an argument. Direct insults of other posters are not permitted. If a poster attempts to employ the first type of insult as a “cover” for the second type of insult, it is not permitted.
Eh… it possibly should have, since the OP’s thesis was rather obviously that Jews are elitist racists who get a pass on their racism, but we’ve got a long tradition of allowing even thoroughly distasteful arguments to be hashed out in GD. Threads on, for instance, alleged black ‘genetic inferiority’ are allowable. If you object, you can always Pit the author and provide a (non-flaming) link to the Pit thread in the GD thread.
This is something that’s been debated back and forth on these boards for some time. In general, the prohibition against ‘hate speech’ is amorphous and ephemeral. “Jews in the US government whose political opinions don’t match mine are possible traitors who we need to keep a wary eye on them, and Jews in Hollywood may have formed a cabal to help Jews at the cost of gentiles’ success.”
Is acceptable. “Jews in the US government whose political opinions don’t match mine are possible traitors who we need to keep a wary eye on them, and Jews in Hollywood may have formed a cabal to help Jews at the cost of gentiles’ success, and also I call them Kykes.” That would be hate speech.
In general, we can (ideally) discuss anything without flaming in GD, and if someone’s attitude pisses you off, Pit the fucker.
On that count, remember that the mods don’t read everything and you should report something if you feel it’s a rules violation. However, certain terms aren’t going to be classified as personal insults. Stating that someone is “ignorant” generally won’t trip the filters and IME “uneducated” can go either way. “Stupid” or “illiterate” should be pretty clear bright-line violations, however. But, of course, sometimes the mods disagree. I wouldn’t expect to be able to call a poster a “dishonest debater” in GD, for example, but meh.
But my position was that anyone who claims to know the superior categorization of a religious group that he/she does not belong to is a sanctimonious asshole.
Kind of like someone saying that Jews who don’t want to marry non-Jews are bigots, eh?
I’m seriously not trying to be a jerk. I’m just wondering if insults re: religion and ethnicity get a “free pass”.
Okay, this is straight from Grandma Volansky to you, here.
For the filling: peel and cube 7 medium-to-large potatoes, boil for 25 minutes or until soft enough to mash, and drain and return to kettle–but do not mash. Add 8 oz cubed Colby, Longhorn, or mild cheddar cheese. Cover and wait a few minutes for cheese to soften. Add 1 tsp salt and mash until smooth. Here’s the part where you need some finesse and extra cheese–everyone likes this different, so taste it and if it’s not quite right, add more cheese or salt or potatoes or whatever. Set aside to cool to near room temp.
Then in another large bowl mix 6 c. flour and 3 tsp. salt. Make a small well in the middle and add 1c. water and 3 eggs. Mix until it forms a very smooth dough, then knead for five minutes. Add more flour or water sparingly if necessary. Divide dough into three pieces, covering loosely with a towel until ready to use. Roll out one piece of dough at a time on a smooth floured surface until approx 1/8" thick (but no thinner!) (this usually ends up being a sheet 18-24" square for me, YMMV). Cut into 2" squares and put about 1tsp of the potato mix in the center of each square. Fold squares in half on the diagonal and pinch tightly to seal (takes practice and patience). Set pinched peroghi aside on floured surface until all are done (I use cookie sheets, myself, all the more so because they can be stacked in the freezer and frozen solid at this stage, then put into ziplocks for long term storage).
When ready to eat–boil a large kettle of lightly salted water. Drop peroghi in a few at a time while stirring to keep them from sticking. Return pot to a boil and simmer ~10min or until they are floating and tender around the edges. Drain carefully (and deep fry them if you must, but I’m not responsible for any hauntings that result). Serve with melted butter and sauteed onions.
Okay. But just note: If you ask someone about their literacy capabilities, you’ll get Modded for that.
Unless you’re asking me. Then it’s OK.
I’m hesitant to report stuff – it just seems silly. But I did report Dio doing to me what I did to him a few posts before (and got warned for it) just to keep the debate on center. Didn’t work.
Meh. I’d rather just kick someone in the balls. I grew up with brothers. My parents didn’t have time for tattling. (:
The best part is you can cook 'em directly from frozen. We usually wait for a family get-together and make a double or triple batch and freeze a few gross to distribute.
Could you please explain how it’s possible to be an atheist Jew but not be a Jew who believes in Christ? If Judaism is all about what you do and not about what you believe, then why can’t you be a “practicing Jew” who also happens to believe that the Jewish God Hashem (being all-powerful and theoretically capable of doing anything) created a son called Jesus Christ who gave his life for man’s salvation?
CitizenPained, I think you are just dogmatically making these declarations without thinking about them. You claim that someone can be a “Jewish Buddhist” but the idea of a “Jewish Christian” is unacceptable to you. I suspect that you’re just applying your cultural conditioning that you grew up with (like I did) that Christianity is something alien and undesirable and oppressive, but you figure Buddhism’s okay because it seems “nicer” than Christianity.
I am absolutely not buying that BS explanation for a second. I want to know why she thinks it isn’t possible. She’s outlined very specifically why she believes you can be a Jew - not just that, but a “practicing Jew” and an Atheist at the same time. Specifically, it’s because she thinks Judaism is about what you do and not what you believe, and also because there’s no specific commandment that says you have to believe in God. So I want to hear an equally detailed explanation as to why you can’t be a practicing Jew - practicing all of the commandments - and not also believe in Christ.
Finn, you don’t need to answer for her. I want her to answer.
Okay.
