Mean-spirited awful things people say:

[Kizzume]

This is a thread I am starting and stickying it to be used to quote posts on THIS forum that are truly truly awful.

Unless there are threats on someone's life or threats to a government official, or declaring plans to do something awful and illegal, I do not believe in deleting people's posts, which is why I created this thread.

Posts that are completely unacceptable but not illegal will be quoted in their entirety and placed here. This way, potentially good threads don't get completely derailed, and the reasons for those things being offensive can be discussed in full. When I say "completely unacceptable", I'm referring to things like calling people anti-gay slurs or racist slurs directly, blaming all the world's problems on "the Jews", that kind of crap--if you want to create a thread just to talk about issues about those kinds of things, feel free to make a new thread in the Deep Cleansing area--make sure the title of the thread is descriptive of the actual subject. As long as the threads are in their appropriate places, everything is fine.

If you derail GOOD threads to say truly horrible things, expect the post to be quoted and placed here. If you have any problem with the decision made, TALK TO ME--and I don't mind if you want to do it in public--just do not take it out on the moderators--they're following MY rules. If you want to plea about how you think the comment should stay--go for it. Maybe you can make a convincing argument, but probably not--not if you directly called people racist or anti-gay slurs.

I haven't seen this approach taken before. It is experimental, but it seems like a reasonable way to address both issues when it comes to dealing with TRULY offensive posts. I could be completely wrong. If you think I'm wrong--tell me where I'm wrong and if it makes sense, I will change this policy accordingly. I just want to do whatever can make the most people enjoy this forum.

[Kizzume]

To quote a recent post of Technocrat:

1. There is no evidence that God does not exist, yet there is plenty of evidence to His existence.

Wrong. There is zero evidence of God's existence, and considerable evidence he doesn't exist. 99% of the religions and their descriptions of God defy all natural laws and science. They are often entirely illlogical, and they have no evidence for them. Insofar as the latter is concered, the absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence: just not proof. I don't even need to prove God doesn't exist. You need to show he does exist. The burden of proof is on you, not the skeptic.

I don't need to prove something doesn't exist, but that argument's only trotted out when it comes to God. Let's apply it to someting else. You cannot disprove the idea that Bob doesn't have a magic friend only visible to him, who lives in a boot. When you put your foot in the boot them, you don't feel him. You also can't see him or detect himin any way, shape, or form. It woudl be ludicrous to claim: "Well, I cannot absolutely 100% prove that Bob's magic friend isn't living inside my boot, I guess it's ok to believe it anyway!"

Y ou also can't disprove the notion that you are being anally raped right now by metaphysical faeries. It would be preposterious to believe it, though, or seriously contend that it exists. The lack of evidence serves of evidence of absence and fits in nicely with Occam's Razor.

Considering that the majority of Americans believe in God, that is enough to prove His existence.

Nonsense. Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy. The number of people believing something has no bearig on the truth-value of the statement. According to your logic, if the majority of Americans do not believe in Evolution, then evolution must be false or creationism true. In fact, most Americans do not believe in Evoltuion and do believe in Creationism. I guess evolution's lolz amirite?

For those individuals, God exists. He is just as real as you are.

Sophistry! Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no "exists for you, but not for me." This isn't the matrix, and you ain't Morpheus. Go peddle the post-modern pseudophilosophy somewhere else.

There are thousands of people who honestly believe that they are talking to people who, according to all psychiatric research, are imaginary. They are delusional. Fundametnalists and people who think they have a personal relationship with a being living in the clouds are no less delusional. God is a delusion, just one that is accepted.

Pejoratives such as sky daddy isn't going to change the mind of anyone.

I don't give a shit about changing anyone's mind. The people I debate are long gone and cannot be helped. It's just cathartic to mercillessly atatck them, making them look like idiots. It's my sport and hobby, kinda like how rich people play polo. I wack idiots.

What is delusional is to assume that you have the answer that the majority of country doesn't have.

Not really. The majority of people are morons. Over 50% of the population believes in a literal understanding of the Bible and denies evolution. That much is clear. Again, the number of people who believe something doesn't imply correctness. I am fully capable of claiming that you are delusional if you claim you talk to a guy living in the sky no one can see, test. That's called crazy. In fact, Fundies fit the label for schizophrenics almost to the letter. They hold on to discredited, unsupported believes despite contrary or lack of evidence and do not change.

It's delusional to think that you are so intelligent as to KNOW that God doesn't exist.

I guess you also think it's delusional to think you are so intelligent to KNOW that smurfs aren't blowing you right now, too, eh? There's what? a .00000000000000000000000001% chance they might, so I guess you gotta suspend judgement eh? Oh wait...I got a better one. It's delusional to believe that if you drop a ball, it won't suddenly fly up and sprout wings. It's fully possible, if you consider magic a real option.

Or maybe our president is really from the Planet Xypax and has drugged the entire population with a mind-altering agent that makes him only look human! It's possible! lolz lolz! The possibilites that extent from your logic are endless.

God is no different.

You believe that God does not exist without conclusive proof. Apparently you suffer from the same mass delusion you claim the majority of Americans are suffering from, believing something without concrete evidence one direction or another.

Wrong. I don't need to prove something does not exist, nor is it logically possible anyway. To ask someone to do that is to comitt a fallacy of reasoning. I can, however, supply strong evidence and reasoning not to believe. If we took your logic seriously, since we cannot absolutely, 100% "conclusively" prove or disprove anything (since one can always appeal to magic or some absurd bullshit about metaphysics), we cannot claim to have knowledge of anything. Clearly, that's absurd.

2. People discriminate regardless of background. While it's true that the Government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate because it is funded by tax dollars paid by everyone, the same is not true for individual business.

[

Bullshit. It's specifically stated in the 1964 civil rights law that businsses open to the public, including hotels and accommodations, are disallowed from discriminating on the basis of race. If we can do it for that reason, there's no reason we cannot do it for gender/sexuality. Business ought not be able to deny people critical resources, such as jobs, healthcare, accommodations based on irrelevant criteria. In the 50s, blac people weren't allowed to drink from the same fucking water fountains in restaurants. The law now prevents that Libertopian bullshit.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to avoid hiring you to work in a Christian bookstore considering the fact that you disagree with the religion.

They shouldn't even know you don't believe in their religion in the first place, nor does "believing" the religion mean you will not be able to ring up a purchase effectively. Again, if someone's religion stated that black people were evil, he could use the same reasoning to deny black people work tbased on his religion's commands.

Why should a business owner be forced to hire someone who would hurt his business? That's not the principles this country was founded on.

WHy should a business owner be forced to give accommodations to cripples? Why should he be forced to allow blacks, mexicans in his restaurant? Why should they not be allowed to just ban any minority they don't personally like? Oops, because it's illegal. That's why. And wrong.

Who gives a fuck about what principles this country was founded on 200+ years ago? This country's principles fully allowed slavery when it was first created and was founded by racist white men who whipped slaves and forced women into property status or allowed people to starve on the streets in the name of "liberty." The old principles were pure shit in the first place. Libertarianism is retarded. Y ou need to stop worshiping the Founding Fathers.

Free market economy is what should control the decisions of the business, not the passions of the minority

Fuck the free market God and your alter of captialism.

It's illogical to discriminate against patrons, but perfectly logical to discriminate in who you hire. Just as one would not want super flame to represent their Christian bookstore, one would not want Pastor Smith to represent their gay bar.

It's illogical to discriminate against patrons, yet they did it all the time until it was outlawed. Amazing. It's only rational to discriminate against people whom you hire if there's a real threat. There's no more threat to atheists working at your book store than there would be if all black people were deemd "a threat" by someone else, and thus banned from work. Yet banning people based on race is also illegal, asshole. Unless you can show concrete evidence they are some threat, they lack the requisite skills, stfu. Anyone can use vague wishy-washy bullshit criteria, but change the target:

OOPS, mexicans are a threat to mai business, can't hire! Blacks are a threatzorz to mai business, can't hire! OOps, that's illegal. But if you want to ban gay people or atheists, that's A-ok!

You keep going back to this cashier analogy, but that analogy fails. An atheist cashier lacks one of the key skills that is required for the job. Believing in what they are selling. If they don't believe in what they are selling, that will reduce sales and ultimately hurt the store.

Bullshit. The atheist doesn't lack any of the key skills involved in selling, checking out, filing books. The job description has nothing to do with promoting or arguing against Christianity. If the job is a cashier at a Christian book store, your logic allows employers also to ban gays from employment, just because of religious bigotry. If the religion says gays have a "lifestyle" that's bad according to their fantasy religion, then they can just go "nope!" just as a racist can go "nope!" if he thinks black people will hurt his business. No difference.

Customers don't fucking know what the cashier believes. I don't ask the god damn cashier about his motherfucking personal life when I buy a book, and no one else does either. It will only reduce sales if you can show it does that when atheists are hired, but alas, you have no statistical evidence of that. Furthermore, one could just employ that arguement as above: with racial minorities. Anyone can claim : "I wont hire blacks because their lifestyle goes against my values and it will hurt my business!" for a cashier job.

You don't need to believe anything to sell if. If that were the case, than you haven't seen infomercials lately. Now, if they can show that they actually lose business or that atheists hired attack, harrass customers, or push atheism on customers, then and only then would they have any basis for their claims. You can't just claim they harm your business and pull evidence out of your ass, kid. Again, let's play that game with gays and women. "I won't hire women, because they will hurt my business by being female."

You provide no evidence for this claim.


I know lots about Christianity. The problem is that I don't peddle the santizied bulshit you were fed by your parents or preacher.

I'll tell you WHY I have placed this post here:

That is NOT what the thread was about, and what you were stating was truly hateful. I've had my share of my own anti-religious rants, but I kept them in the appropriate places, and I never went THAT far over the top. If you want to start an anti-religious thread, do so, but please do not derail threads to spout hate.

Thanks.

[technocrat]

So basically, you get rid of all my argument that refutes his points because it's "mean" yet leave his bullshit. Thanks. That makes it look like I didn't address it.

[technocrat]

I wasn't spouting hate. I was stating facts. His argument is fucking bullshit, and I am tired of bullshit market wank libertopian christo retardation.

[Hackfest]

I was going to move this here, but thought it would be better if an admin who wasn't closely connected to the reason of moving it would show more effectiveness in the moving of the post.

[Kizzume]

technocrat said:

So basically, you get rid of all my argument that refutes his points because it's "mean" yet leave his bullshit. Thanks. That makes it look like I didn't address it.

If they want to weed through the hatred in the argument, they can come to THIS thread where they can see your post in its entirety.

[Kizzume]

technocrat said:

I wasn't spouting hate. I was stating facts. His argument is fucking bullshit, and I am tired of bullshit market wank libertopian christo retardation.

You may not have MEANT it as hate, you may not have FELT it as hate, but it was very hateful. You were not being objective in your arguments at all.

[technocrat]

There is no hatred at all in my argument, and I didn't "delete" anything. I added new information. My post only seems "hateful" because I don't beat around the bush and tell it like it is. I am brutal, upfront, and honest. I don't believe in pretending to be civil like they do, while lying right to your face and ignoring what you are saying.


How is my argument NOT objective?

A. God has no evidence for him
B. Therefore, there's no reason to believe in him.
C. Absence of Evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.
D. Believing in God for no reason, given he's entirely undetectable, unfalsifiable, and magical is very much akin to believing in an invisible magical friend.

If someone said he talked to an invisible friend no one could see, we would certainly call him...delusional! But if someone says he has a personal relationship with a magical, invisible being, but he calls him a God, well then it's not? That's absurd. Surely you see that. You are a computer scientist. Think like one.

My argument is entirely objective. Even the second part.

A. If you are going to allow banning of gays from employment because they aren't "ideologically correct," then any employer should also be able to use that same argument to ban black people, mexicans, women, etc. All they need to do is say "lolz, they don't fit my religious ideology."

B. If you simply claim "they will hurt my business" with no evidence, no need to provide it, then you, again, can do the same thing for any other group. There's no limit, because really, the criteria are arbitrary and unevidenced!


Now is that NOT reasonable and objective?

[Kizzume]

Some religious people feel very strongly about subjects, but they are expected to be civil in their judgments. When THEY are blunt, people don't like it much. Why do you feel YOU are immune from those same things--that if it's religious, people aren't allowed to be blunt and hateful, but if it isn't religious, people are allowed to be hateful? I don't get it.

Your arguments are not actually related to the subject--you are trying to disprove religion in order to PROVE your side, and it's not going to work that way. You're trying to create a strawman before you tear it down, and again, it's not going to work that way. Talk about the subject at hand, not about how invalid you believe religion to be--whether there's truth in your statements about its invalidity or not.

The other side's arguments ARE valid, whether you like them much or not. Whether "I" like them much or not. There's lots of things in life to dislike.

[technocrat]

How am I creating a strawman? I am simply going by what the article said, comparing it to what Hackfest said, and then coming to a conclusion that his logic can be used to give religion a free ride, whereas other groups aren't allowed it.


Wait....wait...you think his argument is valid? The one where he said something is true if a majority believes it? Really? Isn't logic a part of computer science degrees anymore? That's a textbook invalid argument.

My argument was certainly on topic: X religion wants to have the right to ban gays from employment because they are not "ideologically correct." The government says "no, that's wrong." He then screams in outrage that the government would limit his religious freedom to discriminate against gay people.

I don't feel I am "immune" to anything. My arguments aren't hateful. If facts hurt their feelings, I really can't say I am sorry. Their psychological instability and think skin isn't my problem. I am not mommy on the internet. Religious people aren't blunt when they act hateful. They are just acting hateful. What I say is interpreted as being hateful because the truth just isn't pleasant: discrimination allowed because your religion says so is absurd, and we should dismiss it especially because it's all made up nonsense. We would dismiss any other claim to be able to discriminate based on race, gender in the workplace, but not if we couch it in "religious" moral terms. Then it's off limits to criticize and labelled "hatred."

When I was in New York a a gay pride march, I had fucking STONES thrown at me. STONES, while people held up signs saying they hope I burn in hell . Do you understand what that means? In the Bible, they stone gays. Now THAT is hatred. What I am saying is just the truth. Their discrimination is vile and shouldn't be tolerated.

[Kizzume]

You're creating a strawman by making it so you HAVE to disprove religion FIRST before you can make your argument. Try arguing this WITHOUT trying to disprove religion. The discussion isn't about whether religion is valid or not.

Like I've said, I agree with many of your points--I might even agree with you about religion in general, but I don't state it in a hateful form against people who have believed in it since they were little. That is NOT civil, at all.

The stone throwing thing is pretty rare-but them holding up signs saying "sinful" and such--yes, that happens. You DON'T see atheists holding up hateful signs at Christian gatherings--why? Because they know it would just cause anger. The posts you have made here on this subject seem to be that of a similar thing--it seems you don't care whether you're understood, you just want to make it clear that you're upset about the situation. If you really cared about being understood, you'd discuss it in a manner that people from the opposite side can absorb. You did nothing of the such.

[technocrat]

You're creating a strawman by making it so you HAVE to disprove religion FIRST before you can make your argument. Try arguing this WITHOUT trying to disprove religion. The discussion isn't about whether religion is valid or not.

That's not what a strawman means. I don't need to argue by disproving religion. I can argue that the criterion itself is bigoted and leads to social absurdity unless you give it special privileges. The fact that religions are invalid is just icing on the cake. My argument really has little to do with religion and all to do with the fact that they want to have special rights other owners do not have to discriminate based on their religion. That they claim "religious freedom" is what is central. This is silly.

]

The stone throwing thing is pretty rare-but them holding up signs saying "sinful" and such--yes, that happens. You DON'T see atheists holding up hateful signs at Christian gatherings--why? Because they know it would just cause anger. The posts you have made here on this subject seem to be that of a similar thing--it seems you don't care whether you're understood, you just want to make it clear that you're upset about the situation. If you really cared about being understood, you'd discuss it in a manner that people from the opposite side can absorb. You did nothing of the such.

In the beginning, I was very civil, and I quite calmly outlined why their arguments were wrong, but it was largely ignored while they ran around patting each other on the back about how smart they think they are. When I have people telling me that something suddenly becomes true if enough people believe it, I think that's the underlying problem for why they don't understand me.

[Kizzume]

You really should repost that in that thread. That was very well said, unlike the previous several posts.