|
Post by Hackfest on Nov 13, 2007 2:57:55 GMT -5
Kizzume seems to vouch for you, but I'm going to say this, and maybe you just won't care. It doesn't matter though, I'm going to say it.
Coming from someone that doesn't know you at all, the first impressions are really lame. You come across as a slandering, angry, almost villainous individual. It doesn't really matter to me that you have a different opinion about that, or even if it's not true. This is the IMPRESSION that you give off to someone who doesn't know you, and I don't know if that's what you're trying to put out or not, but I thought you should know. Effective debate is foreign to what you've posted here. And it's Deep Cleansing, and its all good, but really, there's no logic in discussion so far with you, you only slander and go way off track. Your responses have been juvenile at best so far. I hope I haven't offended you more than one should be from hearing this from a stranger. Maybe you will put out a better image of representation in the future. I'm all for heated debate, but your substance is awful, if it can even be called that. Good luck in future posts, you seem like you could be cool, maybe.
I will say this from what I garnered of your post, at least Christianity was around when the country was founded, and therefore must have been thought of in the first amendment. I can't say the same for the examples you've created.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 10:11:17 GMT -5
My post had lots of substance. I clearly articulated the problem with your reasoning and why it's ridiculous to give religions free reign to discriminate at the workplace or through public service under the guise of religious freedom. That you don't like the facts isn't my problem. You want to have special treatment because of your religion that no one else gets when providing similar services to the public or jobs. This is absurd, since the whole reasoning behind wanting that special treatment is that your religion.
When you understand that your religion, like most, is a set of arbitrary rules handed down by imaginary deities, it clearly becomes ridiculous for as secular government to give it lip service and allow those imaginary deity's rules/regulations to exempt them from workplace discrimination laws everyone else must abide by.
Furthermore, I showed that, given these arbitrary sets of rules, one can craft any religion with any set of arbitrary rules and demand recognition by the state, thus exemption. The only thing you could argue against that with is that they aren't "accepted" religions or "official" religions, but that's inconsequential because then you're merely appealing to the popularity of the belief. There's no functional difference between allowing Christians to be exempt from fair hiring/firing practices based on their religion and allowing racists who claim religion to do the same thing by forbidding "niggaz" from shopping at stores they happen to own, if they can show their "religion" says they are forbidden to service blacks.
You can't see this because you only really want religious exemption for your particular religion, damn the consequences for other ones. Special treatment, plain and simple.
The rest of your reply is nothing by a personal attack on me, which ironically lacks substance that you attack me for.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 10:34:25 GMT -5
Wrong. I am not "just the same" as they are. Christianity is a false religion with a bogus God who is literally akin to an imaginary friend a school boy would have in Elementary. You expect society to give these delusional half-wits special treatment such that they are entirely exempt from hiring/firing/service Civil Rights laws on the flimsy basis that their imaginary being's rules contradict the secular concerns. Sorry. Reality overrides fantasy, and society has a secular interest in preventing people from unwarrented discrimination in public service. I can direct you to the civil rights laws of 64 et al for this. You are not allowed to discriminate in public services based on non-performance criteria. Whether or not someone is gay, white, black, or atheist has no bearing on whether or not he can ring up a check. In fact, you shouldn't even be asking. It's irrelevant. It's a job. If you own a hotel, it's irrelevant whether your patrons are "Christians." You cannot deny them service or jobs on those grounds.
My position is hardly the same as people who claim invisible people's rules exempt them from treating others decently. Of course I am speaking from emotion, as in passionately, but that doesn't mean the position isn't also based on reason. It's not either or. It's really simple: your religion shouldn't be a valid reason to discriminate against people in jobs or public service. Religions are the ONLY ones who get this mysterious protection--no wait...popular religions, I mean.
You shouldn't even ask waht religion people are when you hire, as long as they have the capacity to do the job. If you are selling books, it would be valid if they could operate a cash register, direct people to sections, have knowledge of what is in the store. The other shit is irrelevant. What if the owner of Borders forbid asian people from coming into his store because his religion tells him that asians are satanic? Of course no one would accept that bullshit criterion. That it doesn't exist doesn't make the hypothetical irrelevant, again, because the only criterion mentioned is "religious freedom" as a reason for a public service to discriminate against that public based on made-up arbitrary standards.
Hate the sin, not the sinner, is the way your typical Christian can delude himself into feeling like he's not a bad person by, say, attacking gay people in public. What they do is hide behind that bullshit catch phrase. In reality, the "sins" are often inherent to the person's self. You cannot separate the two. Just being gay is a sin according to Christianity, and since someone is gay, not pretending, acting (born that way, ie.), it's absurd to claim "hate the sin, love the sinner." If you really loved them, you wouldn't discriminate or attack them.
Of course they hate me, and I hate them right back. When you attack them back, throw their oppression right back in their faces they try to paint YOU as the bad guy, whining how oppressed they arei n turn. O'Reilly likes to do this with his culture war nonsense. Every 5 seconds he bitches and moans about how Christianity is under attack in a culture-war. Ridiculous. If Christianity were so oppressed,t en why are Atheists the least trusted, most hated group in America? Why then do Christians have a dozen cable channels, and I have none? Because they are in power, hardly oppressed minorities. That's why.
It's a hypothetical, that's why. It's based on the fact that the only justification for discrimination was freedom of religion. That the religions I mentioned don't exist is irrelevant. I am using the criteria desginated by the above poster to create a set of rules to justify discrimination of a different kind, just as irrelevant to job performance, just as arbitrary. Pretend I own subway. I don't want no stinking mexicans in my store. If a religion said that, it would be preposterous, but if a guy owns a bookstore, won't let anyone who doesn't fit his religion's arbitrary conventions shop in or work there, well dag'nabbit, that's perfectly ok! Freedom wank!
Sure, no religions say blacks can't shop at their stores or work there. Becaus the law forbids it. A religion could easily claim it deserves exemption for the same reason you want to discriminate against non-Christians. Want to buy a book for a friend at the Christian shop? OOPS, nope! No atheists allowed! Want to work there? You have all the skills? NOPE! You don't meet the "religious" requirements, even though you are only a fucking cashier.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 13, 2007 11:38:56 GMT -5
1. There is no evidence that God does not exist, yet there is plenty of evidence to His existence. Considering that the majority of Americans believe in God, that is enough to prove His existence. For those individuals, God exists. He is just as real as you are. Using pejoratives such as sky daddy isn't going to change the mind of anyone. What is delusional is to assume that you have the answer that the majority of country doesn't have. It's delusional to think that you are so intelligent as to KNOW that God doesn't exist. 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.
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. 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. 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. Free market economy is what should control the decisions of the business, not the passions of the minority. 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.
Your post shows that you know little about Christianity and are willing to attack it openly simply because you disagree. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 14:29:40 GMT -5
Debateman, that was well said.
Now, if the stores weren't hiring someone even though that person knows EVERYTHING about the Bible but isn't a Christian--I think that would be unfortunate. A store that sells computers wouldn't hire someone who knows nothing about computers--but they WOULD hire someone who knows a LOT about computers who chooses not to use them.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 16:04:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 16:27:29 GMT -5
Edit: the actual act is meant to prevent hiring and firing based on sexual orientation. According to your logic, they ought to be able to ban gays from employment simply because they are deemed bad by their religion. That's ridiculous. Might as well ban black people too if a religion says they can't be hired by you.
|
|
|
Post by jq on Nov 13, 2007 16:58:30 GMT -5
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. I have too much respect for my fellow board users to read you labelling them as idiots. I'd say this statement sums up the discussion pretty well -- obviously, it is going nowhere. On that note, I'd say I am done discussing this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 20:35:01 GMT -5
Technocrat, I believe in some of your points, but going into a rankfest does not accomplish anything.
If you want to start an anti-religion thread, please do so, but let's get this whole thing back on track.
|
|
|
Post by debateman on Nov 13, 2007 20:49:36 GMT -5
I think that the post in response to my mine was insufficient at best. It was a man who is opposed to religion so blinded by his views that he wasn't able to refute the simple objective facts. His information about Christianity is based upon his personal experience as that is the primary way to relate to something, but it fails to address that some of us have actually read the book, scholarly analysis, and developed our own opinion.
I'm not "spoon fed" my ideas, so instead of a blatant personal attack, perhaps the poster should address the issue with reason instead of flippant denials.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 21:30:00 GMT -5
Unfortunately, because the thread had gotten derailed, I never got to hear HackFest's argument about the subject--he was too busy trying to defend having supporting a religion.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 22:06:01 GMT -5
And you would be wrong. I took you through baby steps and pointed out the logical pitfalls in your imbecilic argument. Observe but two you threw out:
1. If a lot of people believe something, then it must be true! 2. Something can be true for person A, but not for person A.
The first is a fallacy called appeal to popularity/numbers The second is a fallacy of relativism.
You had no objective information, but I did indeed refute your so-called "argument." Refer to the above. Apparently, you think listing a string of logical fallacies equals an argument, and then you follow it up with waving your hands frantically thinking you've won. You prove my point the more you talk: you're too stupid to understand what I am saying--literally.
I've read the book too. It's bullshit through and through. Not only is it internally inconsistent, the stories are myths and fables, but much of my argument's got nothing to do with the Bible anyway. So your point is irrelevant. That's only a minor part of this discussion. It's a fact that someone who believes in a magic man in the sky with no evidence is a delusional retard. That you believe in it, thus don't like the label, isn't my problem. I am sure Bob the schizo doesn't like his label either, but hey buddy, the shoe fits. Your opinion is wrong. Period. Mine is not. Belief in a personal God is 100% delusion no different from belief in invisible friends.
I already did address your "argument." You whine, moan about insults and then wave your hands about it claiming you bullshit is "objective fact." There wasn't a single "fact" in anything you've said yet. That's hilarious given that you're the one who seriousy tried to argue that something suddenly becomes true if millions of people think it is. Seriously dude. You think that's a valid argument? My dog licks his own ass, and he could come up with a better argument than that. .
You got some serious delusions of adequacy to claim I am not being reasonable given you actually made the above idiotic argument. BUt of course, go whine some more about my style while ignoring the fact that your argument is one long series of bizarre logical errors.
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 22:10:11 GMT -5
Unfortunately, because the thread had gotten derailed, I never got to hear HackFest's argument about the subject--he was too busy trying to defend having supporting a religion. What your friend Hackfest is trying to do is defend bigotry and discrimination against gay people. He wants his special little religion to be allowed to ban gays from employment because they don't meet his "Christian lifestyle." It doesn't matter if they TOO are Christians, of course, or if they are entirely qualified to work there. I just DARED to point that out and how hypocritical that is, how much bullshit Christian "love and toleration is" and the Chrisitan goonsquad went into full hard-core action apologism. I showed how the reasoning they are using can be employed against any group: gays, blacks, non-Christians, mexicans, etc, and the point sailed right over their prayer-drawn heads.
|
|
|
Post by Kizzume on Nov 13, 2007 22:23:40 GMT -5
Dude, is not cool. I'm not moving it this time, but please stop it with your superiority complex. We all have opinions, some have more facts from this place than others, some have facts from that place more than others, and some people don't have very many facts. You come from a certain place--fine--you think you're superior--fine--treat people with some civility. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them stupid!
|
|
|
Post by technocrat on Nov 13, 2007 22:28:32 GMT -5
You are right. That they disagree with me doesn't make them stupid. I never said they were stupid because they disagreed. I said they were stupid because...their argument was stupid.
Do you think an intelligent person would claim: "lol if many people believe it, it must be true?" Come on. If a million people said Apple Computers were impossible to destroy, would that make it true? Of course not. Then have the person dismiss your entire argument, whine about nasty names, and pretend like he's the reasonable one.
That's an insult. Even on the other forum, everyone thinks I AM the asshole, just because I don't pull a net nanny. I just tell it like it is, and that offends people because people aren't used to brutal honesty.
|
|