News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[Zinegata]

Yes you can. Not everyone who is brown is Muslim. But hey, those guys were totally racists because they thought brown guys are all Muslim.

Likewise, just because Palestinians are "technically" semites doesn't mean jack shit. Not everyone who is Semite is an Israeli. But hey, anyone who is hating on Israelis is an anti-Semite racist because some people do think all Semites are in fact Jews.

This is a world where words mean different things to different people. Where everything can in fact be construed as racist because rather than going by simple dictionary definitions (that race is, in fact, determined largely by genetics), and we decide to stoop down to the level of the fucking Yugoslavians who think Muslims are in fact a race.

And all this so Crissa can further cheap shot a bunch of idiots who are already being universally condemned as a religious intolerant assclowns who made the humiliating mistake of beating up two fellow Christians.

Excuse me, but screw these invented definitions by you, the Yugoslavians, and Crissa. Because race is not religion.

And those who cannot tell the difference are not necassarily racist. They are, however, morons.

[Zinegata]

What does racism or religious intolerance have to do with not liking storm troopers who happen to fly the Israeli flag?

-Crissa

I can't read your mind. So I will just assume that you are in fact, an anti-Semite because you said bad things about Israel.

Why must you hate the poor, poor, Jews? You're probably one of those Nazis, aren't you? That's probably the truth no matter how hard you deny it.

(And if it's not yet blatantly obvious, Death to the Judean Liberation Front! And to the Backs and Sides as well!)

[virgil]

Will you stop claiming that you have some kind of objectively superior viewpoint on the definition of the word 'race' that disagrees with every formal (and many informal, including many census listings) definition of the word? Oh, obviously a dictionary has no validity for what a word means, but you've got the secret decoder ring that we must bow down to? Race is a social construct and is more broad than you keep harping on about.

[Cynic]

(And if it's not yet blatantly obvious, Death to the Judean Liberation Front! And to the Backs and Sides as well!)

Dude, just because you put this in the end of every sentence doesn't mean you are just kidding.

Seriously, you can't put up what you consider a serious point and then go ahead and make a farcical joke that somehow apparently absolves you off all guilt as you are just lolling it up for fuck's sake.

That's almost trolling. So just shut the fuck up about a joke that was barely funny the first time you, I, or the rest of us said it.

[Zinegata]

Language is a social construct too. That's why words mean different things to different people.

However, if you actually looked up the definition of race as opposed to arguing whether it's a social construct o not:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Race

race 1 (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

The first and primary definition does, in fact, pertain to the genetics of people.

Cynic->

It's not meant to be a joke. It's meant to tell Crissa that I'm not seriously calling her a racist because she is very likely stupid enough to take what I'm saying literally.

Anyway, I'm not gonna change any of your minds anyway. So go ahead and use the word racist willy-nilly.

I give up.

[violence in the media]

This short history of anti-feminists seems somewhat relevant.

[Prak]

(And if it's not yet blatantly obvious, Death to the Judean Liberation Front! And to the Backs and Sides as well!)

Dude, just because you put this in the end of every sentence doesn't mean you are just kidding.

Seriously, you can't put up what you consider a serious point and then go ahead and make a farcical joke that somehow apparently absolves you off all guilt as you are just lolling it up for fuck's sake.

That's almost trolling. So just shut the fuck up about a joke that was barely funny the first time you, I, or the rest of us said it.

actually he can... it's perfectly valid rhetorical phrasing. The fact that he is obviously being facetious and not trying to be taken seriously makes it not trolling.

[Crissa]

US Senate barely rejects (53 to 47) attempt to block Congress and the Administration from regulating carbon emissions and fossil fuels in Big Oil Bailout from the Senior Alaskan Republican Senator today.

-Crissa

[Cynic]

Prak it isn't just about the phrasing. If you use it every single time, it loses it's value as both a joke and as a tool to remind others that you aren't being serious about yoru argument.



I didn't say it was trolling. I just said it was almost there. I kinda see the irony in saying that I italicized almost so I was emphasizing my words when talking about Zine's use of his own rhetoric through words...

[CatharzGodfoot]

Hell freezes over.

The Heritage Foundation said something sensible.

[Crissa]

Hell freezes over.

The Heritage Foundation said something sensible.

No, it's just free-market tripe all over again. They want to hire Mexican fisherman to do the work instead of locals, so they say that since locals are too expensive, they should overturn the law. I doubt many Americans want to (or can) work at the prevailing wages for Mexican fishermen.

Now, the law is kinda stupid - we should just require that hires and contracts and ships operating from/between domestic ports all follow American labor law and Prevailing Wage instead, with provisions for unemployment rates to trigger reductions in the prevailing. But that would be more government, not less, so we don't get that solution.

Instead we get offers to gut the only protections we have, which at least reduce the impact of industry upon our shores rather than providing grounds for dumping and economic pillaging by corporations.

-Crissa

...So, wait, did RC just say that people should tolerate being discriminated against, so that maybe they won't be? Or that by observing institutional racism, we're encouraging it?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Hell freezes over.

The Heritage Foundation said something sensible.

No, it's just free-market tripe all over again. They want to hire Mexican fisherman to do the work instead of locals, so they say that since locals are too expensive, they should overturn the law. I doubt many Americans want to (or can) work at the prevailing wages for Mexican fishermen.

Now, the law is kinda stupid - we should just require that hires and contracts and ships operating from/between domestic ports all follow American labor law and Prevailing Wage instead, with provisions for unemployment rates to trigger reductions in the prevailing. But that would be more government, not less, so we don't get that solution.

Instead we get offers to gut the only protections we have, which at least reduce the impact of industry upon our shores rather than providing grounds for dumping and economic pillaging by corporations.

-Crissa

...So, wait, did RC just say that people should tolerate being discriminated against, so that maybe they won't be? Or that by observing institutional racism, we're encouraging it?

According to the Belgian newspaper De Standaard, European firms could complete the task in four months, rather than an estimated nine months if done only by the U.S., and just three months if working with U.S. firms.

Wow, I guess I should get better at reading between the lines. I had no idea that meant hiring Mexican fishermen instead of american workers.

[Crissa]

Wow, I guess I should get better at reading between the lines. I had no idea that meant hiring Mexican fishermen instead of american workers.

I did say there was a non-corporate stooge way of repealing the law.

The history of hiring foreign companies to operating in US waters is not good. Not even in modern times. Go look up labor conditions on foreign-flag shipping and cruise ships, and tell me again if it's a great idea to import their labor laws.

The reason the Heritage Foundation supports this is to allow an end-run around domestic unions and labor laws.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

Sarah Palin made quite the splash recently with her comments to the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List about conservative women reclaiming feminism, asserting that anti-choicers were "returning the woman's movement back to its original roots." Because no central authority exists to control use of the word feminist, Palin's cooption of the term caused anxious questions: Is there such thing as conservative feminism? Can you be a feminist who opposes abortion rights? Does the word feminism mean anything at all? Does merely wearing a power suit and smart-girl glasses automatically make you a feminist?

Is this what feminists actually believe? Because those questions are dumber than the "Should Christians use Facebook?" type of questions.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Paul Prather: New atheists embody the very things they hate

If you weigh the circumstantial evidence for and against the existence of God, there's about as much evidence on one side as the other.

[Neeeek]

Paul Prather: New atheists embody the very things they hate

If you weigh the circumstantial evidence for and against the existence of God, there's about as much evidence on one side as the other.

The amount of things in that article that are flat-out lies or gross distortions of reality is pretty remarkable.

[Maxus]

Paul Prather: New atheists embody the very things they hate

If you weigh the circumstantial evidence for and against the existence of God, there's about as much evidence on one side as the other.

I can see a glimmer of a point there.

Some people on the atheist side of the fence are incredibly obnoxious about it. Almost like Apple or Linux fanatics, in a weird way.

If someone professes a religious belief (or DOESN'T MIND Windows/Microsoft), some people will be incredibly snide and just not let the point rest (whether it's religion or operating systems).

I'd call myself an agnostic, because I just don't care much about religion, one way or another. But there's a lot of people who care about it deeply, even if they express this by ranting about how much they hate it.

[Juton]

Paul Prather: New atheists embody the very things they hate
If the new atheists are as bright as they claim, they ought not imitate the worst traits of the very people they consider their inferiors.

I've noticed that the zealously religious have a lot easier time dealing with people from other religions then with atheists. If you asked this gentleman if atheism is a religion he'd probably day it was, but it is not. Atheism indicates an absence of religion (generally). I think that the zealous dislike atheism that little bit extra because it's foreign, an atheist will lack that certain something that is so strong in believer.

[Kaelik]

I can see a glimmer of a point there.

Some people on the atheist side of the fence are incredibly obnoxious about it. Almost like Apple or Linux fanatics, in a weird way.

But that's really just a point you are making up. He's not saying "They care about religion even though they claim not to." Because of course new atheists care about religion, just like they care about anything else that greatly affects them in a negative way.

I am reminded of a wonderful video "Why your religion is wrong." which goes through a bunch of religions and pseudo religions and mocks them all.

It brings up Apathism, or whatever, which is basically "It doesn't matter if God exists."

And it says "Frankly, I think whether or not the creator of the universe is judging everything you do and deciding whether you will suffer an eternity of worst pain or greatest pleasure, that's an important question to answer."

You literally can't say "I don't care about religion that much, why can't we all get along" without believing that all those things that all those religions say are false, so the only remaining question is:

Do you think acting based on true assumptions creates better results than acting based on false ones?

And if you answer no, then sure, believe in belief. But if you answer yes, then you had damn well better think that it's important to stop people from being religious.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You literally can't say "I don't care about religion that much, why can't we all get along" without believing that all those things that all those religions say are false, so the only remaining question is:

Do you think acting based on true assumptions creates better results than acting based on false ones?

And if you answer no, then sure, believe in belief. But if you answer yes, then you had damn well better think that it's important to stop people from being religious.

It matters whether or not religions are True, but that truth does not determine whether you should try to force people to not be religious. It only indicates whether you should force them to be religious.

[Crissa]

Do humans have the right to steal someone else's kidney without permission? Because that's about the same level of 'right' that people are espousing for fetuses.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

It matters whether or not religions are True, but that truth does not determine whether you should try to force people to not be religious. It only indicates whether you should force them to be religious.

Only to the most hopelessly simpleminded person.

See, anyone smarter than a small fish can see that whether or not Person X believes it is true that he will burn in hell forever for reporting the priest who raped him actually does have a great deal of importance to both Person X and other people.

Once again, if you accept the premise "acting based on true premises results in better actions than acting based on false premises" you are logically committed to opposing false premises.

And since religions are complete worldviews that are also completely false, they literally make it a fucking guarantee that their adherents will not be acting based on true premises in any situations whatsoever, from reporting rapists, to abortion, to voting, to gay marriage, to racial equality, to anything.

A religious person always by necessity approaches such situations from a series of false premises.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The word views provided by religions are always at least partially false, but they aren't usually completely false. Furthermore, even the world view of an avowed atheist such as yourself isn't necessarily completely true.

As an atheist you should realize that it is possible for anyone to be acting from false premises, and that is why science is an arduous pursuit of the truth rather that an immediate enlightenment.

An atheist is unlikely to carry such terrible notions as the hypothetical molested believer in eternal silence or eternal damnation, but avowed atheists have carried terrible false premises such as racial superiority, sexism, and basic ethical failings which many of their religious peers did not.

Note that this isn't false equivalence bullshit: I'm not saying that atheism is no better than a religion because it is a religion. I'm not even saying that atheists are as likely to hold false premises as religious individuals. I'm simply stating that atheism isn't enough of a cure-all to justify forcing it on everyone rather than following more tried-and-true methods such as rational debate and propaganda.

[Juton]

An atheist is unlikely to carry such terrible notions as the hypothetical molested believer in eternal silence or eternal damnation, but avowed atheists have carried terrible false premises such as racial superiority, sexism, and basic ethical failings which many of their religious peers did not.

Each one of those ethical failings you listed is being perpetrated by the catholic church within the last 100 years. I won't make the argument that atheists are morally superior to every religious person, just like anyone would be an idiot to say every person with a religion is morally superior to every atheist.

Note that this isn't false equivalence bullshit: I'm not saying that atheism is no better than a religion because it is a religion. I'm not even saying that atheists are as likely to hold false premises as religious individuals. I'm simply stating that atheism isn't enough of a cure-all to justify forcing it on everyone rather than following more tried-and-true methods such as rational debate and propaganda.

No. Atheism is not a religion, it is not a world view, it does not explain the why of existence, it is not the same from person to person, it is not any form of spirituality. Atheism means in common parlance I don't believe in god(s) or I don't have a religion.

[Kaelik]

I'm simply stating that atheism isn't enough of a cure-all to justify forcing it on everyone rather than following more tried-and-true methods such as rational debate and propaganda.

GRALNHK:CKLASHFHPAHSP AHSPOHAOPSNFJKLA!

WTF you Epic Retard.

Yes, that's the fucking point, Atheism is objectively superior to religion, because it does not make mandatory a whole host of false premises. Yes, that's why we should try to make everyone atheists.

And then you go and say the most colossally stupid thing that I have ever fucking seen in my life!

How the fuck are you so stupid that you think it's even possible to "Force" someone to hold a belief other than by rational debate and propaganda, and who the fuck in the entire universe has ever suggested doing so by whatever your magic third method that sucks is, that you feel like it's important to bitch about those mean new atheists with their rational debate and propaganda being bad things?