• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Things like this are why I'm voting for Obama

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
It's been a while since I took the time to catch up on a thread in P&N that was this awful. Talk about clean up on isle 3.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
YOU brought those items up. I was asking why are those "bad" and called bigotry and hatred just because their opinion isn't the same as yours? I happen to think Jpeyton's spew is just as bad - just on different topics.
oh and you skipped the important part. :) -
Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
 

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2007
2,572
0
71
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It's because most are not under the impression that they are allowed to FORCE that religion onto others and are rational enough to know that the country was founded on the principal that the practice of trying to do just that is illegal.
Nobody is "forcing their religion" on anyone. Different people get their belief structures from different places. Point being, we are all made up with a set of morals we get from somewhere, and just because someone chooses the Bible as the source for theirs, does not give them any less right to vote how they believe.
well when they try to amend the constitution i would say they are kind of trying to force things a bit.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
YOU brought those items up. I was asking why are those "bad" and called bigotry and hatred just because their opinion isn't the same as yours? I happen to think Jpeyton's spew is just as bad - just on different topics.
oh and you skipped the important part. :) -
Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Sure you can have your opinion on those things - I just don't understand why they aren't against the ToS since other have been banned for acting like bigots. I don't think you can deny what he is saying is racist/bigoted. It has nothing to do with being an opinion different than mine. Is it getting through your head yet?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,872
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Vic

And who could disagree with Jesus? I invite anyone to find me one passage from Jesus in the Gospels that they disagree with. Just one.
I might disagree with Jesus' message on these topics if I could only figure out which one is valid at any given time....

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true

.........

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

...........

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

............

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Why would you expect to know which are valid at any one time given this: "but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go"?

Buried under all the garbage that makes you an adult, how is your 'inner' child going to enter the kingdom of heaven? Unless you die to the self how will you be resurrected?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Vic

And who could disagree with Jesus? I invite anyone to find me one passage from Jesus in the Gospels that they disagree with. Just one.
I might disagree with Jesus' message on these topics if I could only figure out which one is valid at any given time....

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true

.........

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

...........

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

............

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Why would you expect to know which are valid at any one time given this: "but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go"?

Buried under all the garbage that makes you an adult, how is your 'inner' child going to enter the kingdom of heaven? Unless you die to the self how will you be resurrected?
Your argument is predicated on there being a heaven. Unless of course your definition of heaven is more like the Buddhist reaching nirvana than the Judea-Christian concept of heaven.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
I can't believe you just compared Jesus with Mo. Mohammed was the taker of life; Christ was the giver of life. Mohammed promoted persecution while Christ forgave persecutors. Islam is irreconcilably hostile to Christians, Jews and unbelievers in Sura 9. Why don't you ask Christians, Jews, and infidels who have been on the receiving end of Muslim sharing-and-caring in Arabia passages they find disagreeable in the Quarn? The few that are left will not share your belief that Islam and Christianity are more or less equal in their fundamentalism.

PS I find almost every passage in the Bible disagreeable to combat a waring religion like Islam. Basically a suckers religion which is going to die as it has done where islam has spread. e.g. Copts in Egypt, Maronites in Lebanon, and Indonesian and Pakistani Christians, are gone or on thier way out.
How many times will this misinformation need to be debunked? :confused: The 9th sura is not a standing order to Muslims to kill non-believers. It's a historical retelling of the return of Mohammed's disciples to the city of Medina, and his message of those disciples that he fully expected them to honour the peace agreement struck between the Muslims and those in Medina who had driven them out.

No doubt you are thinking of:

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
But of course, the line before that verse states:

[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
And the line afterwards states:

[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
Have you actually read the chapter you speak of? While it's not as if Muhammad was a particularly peaceful man by the actions he directed, neither is it accurate to describe the Koran as instructing the wholesale slaughter of heretics and apostates.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
One of the most important victories of the "Christian Right" has been to get the mainstream media to refer to them by that term. they're not really Christians - they're a political movement that should be so designated.

This movement has been growing for a long time. I remember as a child specifically asking my Grandfather how his totalitarian vision of a Christian Nation Under God was any different than the totalitarian precepts of any other form of fascism. His answer was simple: while others may have been led astray by false gods or secular fantasies, his path was righteous and true. You cannot reason with the blinkered thinking of an idealogue who considers their idealism divinely ordained.

Most secularists have any idea how vast and sophisticated the machinery of the extreme right's propaganda machine really is. They have mastered every form of media. They are extrememly politically savy, and have an acute sense of how to target their outreach to the most vulnerable demographics. The intimate "in you living room" setting is a charade just like any sitcom; filmed in a dark empty studio warehouse, with no one around but a few camera grips. Not a shocking relevation, but certainly emblematic of how society can be so easily manipulated by a small cabal of extremists with their modern-day megaphones and light shows.

I don't think the problem is a particular breed or type of person or religion or belief. I think the problem is the institutionalization of belief systems into large hierarchical organizations.

I don't think we should be surprised that when society builds large hierarchical organizations, that totalitarian tendencies will emerge. Such structures promote monoculture and stifle dissent. We can see it happen in our own government. The difference between our government and institutions like the Church is that our government has a regular rotation program in place for its core.

The nucleus of the movement need not be very big - people tend to follow orders and not evaluate what they are told, particularly if that claim is made by an divine authority figure. The scope of the problem can indeed change quickly from a small, organized band of true believers into lots of people just looking to belong.

Mostly though, pastors are just figureheads for the congregation - if they aren't well informed, by chance or by choice - they will select a leader who is equally disinformed. And there is the disconnect - between high-minded theologians who can debate the virtues and spirit of the scriptures, and less-knowledgeable congregants who don't know enough to grasp either side of the debate fully.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
YOU brought those items up. I was asking why are those "bad" and called bigotry and hatred just because their opinion isn't the same as yours? I happen to think Jpeyton's spew is just as bad - just on different topics.
oh and you skipped the important part. :) -
Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Sure you can have your opinion on those things - I just don't understand why they aren't against the ToS since other have been banned for acting like bigots. I don't think you can deny what he is saying is racist/bigoted. It has nothing to do with being an opinion different than mine. Is it getting through your head yet?
So basically because you(and/or others) think he is hateful and racist he should be banned? I think Jpeyton is the same - just on different topics. Why are some hateful and/or bigoted opinions worse than others?

Figured it out yet? ;)
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Butterbean's POV pretty much speaks for and repudiates itself. Anybody who'll believe it was probably dropped on their head as an infant, or suffers from some other sort of organic brain syndrome.

GSG is by far the better propagandist.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
It's speeches like this that may just lift the "religious vote" off their hands this fall and vote against him as he seems to purposely misrepresent Christianity. But I have no doubt that the secular people will eat this sort of thing up.
for the record, you claimed he misrepresents Christianity but you never backed that claim up.

Obama really creates a sense of panic and fear in his detractors. He speaks so much truth that it is shaking their faith and their comfort zones.

I love it.
For the record, you must have missed my post where I addressed it. Do you wish for a theological discussion? I don't, but using those passages show he either doesn't understand Christianity or he purposely misrepresented it. From what I've seen from him so far I'm betting on misrepresenting.

As to the second part. There is no panic but yes I fear what he would do to America. His brand of "truth" is dangerous but does not come close to shaking my faith. :)
You really addressed nothing, CSG, particularly not anything having to do with the modern Fundie Fringe, Dominionists, who lean very heavily on the Old Testament. Their POV has leached its way into many mainstream Christian Denominations, even though those who are affected seldom realize it. The notion that wealth indicates God's favor is very much Old Testament, as well, directly contradicted by Jesus' teachings. Nor have you addressed Obama's remarks wrt the Sermon on the Mount, possibly the most defining aspect of the Christ story.

The Bible, for example, makes no reference to abortion, at all, even though the practice was known and used even in biblical times. Yet it's been the cause celebre of the Christian Right for 30 years... Nor does the furor around it have anything whatsoever to do with the idea of personal salvation, supposedly the primary goal of Christianity in general.

It's not that Obama misrepresents Christianity, at all, but rather that he reveals its foibles and contradictions in a way that reminds us that a fundamental separation of Church and State have existed in this country from the very beginning. Many of the Founders weren't Christian, at all, but rather Deists, acknowledging the existence and the incomprensibility of God all at the same time... basically repudiating the whole structure and dogma of conventional religious practice and belief.

And you claim Obama's words are "dangerous", but only in a very generic way, leaving your audience to fill in the gaps- one of the most widely used propaganda techniques of all time. Dangerous to whom, and in what way? Specifically, what would be the negative consequences if more people thought the way he does, the way that many of the Founders thought?
This is a good post.
Seconded. It nicely highlights one of my biggest concerns with American Christians, or at least those who most loudly proclaim themselves "Christians". They ignore Christ's most fundamental teachings in favor of a potpourri of bits and pieces taken out of context to support their personal biases and hang-ups. Christ preached peace, love, tolerance, and generosity. They practice war, hate, intolerance, and greed. Christ preached against the money-changers. They are the money-changers. Christ preached a new testament. They cling to the old when they can twist it to justify their self-serving and hurtful behaviors.

Many years ago, I considered myself to be a fundamentalist Christian. I read the Bible several times, especially the New Testament, and I Believed. I became increasing disillusioned as I realized so many of the "Christians" around me really didn't practice what they preached. They went on and on about how the Bible was to be read as the literal word of God, yet blithely ignored it or perverted its plain and obvious intent whenever it contradicted or inconvenienced them. It became very clear that, far from God making man in His image, they made god in theirs.
Some things never change.

Matt.23.23 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Matt.23.25 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

Matt.23.27 ?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people?s bones and all uncleanness.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,872
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Vic

And who could disagree with Jesus? I invite anyone to find me one passage from Jesus in the Gospels that they disagree with. Just one.
I might disagree with Jesus' message on these topics if I could only figure out which one is valid at any given time....

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true

.........

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

...........

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

............

Matthew 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Why would you expect to know which are valid at any one time given this: "but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go"?

Buried under all the garbage that makes you an adult, how is your 'inner' child going to enter the kingdom of heaven? Unless you die to the self how will you be resurrected?
Your argument is predicated on there being a heaven. Unless of course your definition of heaven is more like the Buddhist reaching nirvana than the Judea-Christian concept of heaven.
The Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Christian, no?

If you keep a full cup of presumptions how can anybody pour you tea?
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
YOU brought those items up. I was asking why are those "bad" and called bigotry and hatred just because their opinion isn't the same as yours? I happen to think Jpeyton's spew is just as bad - just on different topics.
oh and you skipped the important part. :) -
Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Sure you can have your opinion on those things - I just don't understand why they aren't against the ToS since other have been banned for acting like bigots. I don't think you can deny what he is saying is racist/bigoted. It has nothing to do with being an opinion different than mine. Is it getting through your head yet?
So basically because you(and/or others) think he is hateful and racist he should be banned? I think Jpeyton is the same - just on different topics. Why are some hateful and/or bigoted opinions worse than others?

Figured it out yet? ;)
Yeah, I get your point - you think you can twist language any way you like. Sorry, I think having disagreeing with political ideologies is on a different level than the irrational hate of racism and bigotry. I guess you don't draw the line anywhere, if you think bigotry isn't hateful. After all, the point isn't whether Jpeyton or your opinions are hateful, it's whether bigotry is or isn't. You seem to keep missing that point.

Oh, and your smilies STILL aren't making you seem clever.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: jman19
Is there a reason why idiots like Buttbean are allowed to spew bigoted hatred on this board?
The same reason Jpeyton and others are allowed to spew their hatred... ;)
Really? I'd say what Jpeyton says is closer to the type of political hackery which you espouse (which I certainly don't think is ban worthy) than it is to bigotry and hatred for homosexuals, jews, and muslems. BTW, that little wink doesn't make you seem any more clever.
Ah so it's only bad when the disagreement is about those items? :roll: Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Did I say it is "only bad" if it is about those items? No. Try reading a little harder.
YOU brought those items up. I was asking why are those "bad" and called bigotry and hatred just because their opinion isn't the same as yours? I happen to think Jpeyton's spew is just as bad - just on different topics.
oh and you skipped the important part. :) -
Can not one have their own opinions on these subjects? Or is there only one acceptable position regarding these and the rest are "bigotry and hatred"?
Meh, I think you and others are over reacting to butterbean. Do I like what he spouts? nah, but to me the only difference between him and others is the subject matter(position).
Sure you can have your opinion on those things - I just don't understand why they aren't against the ToS since other have been banned for acting like bigots. I don't think you can deny what he is saying is racist/bigoted. It has nothing to do with being an opinion different than mine. Is it getting through your head yet?
So basically because you(and/or others) think he is hateful and racist he should be banned? I think Jpeyton is the same - just on different topics. Why are some hateful and/or bigoted opinions worse than others?

Figured it out yet? ;)
Yeah, I get your point - you think you can twist language any way you like. Sorry, I think having disagreeing with political ideologies is on a different level than the irrational hate of racism and bigotry. I guess you don't draw the line anywhere, if you think bigotry isn't hateful. After all, the point isn't whether Jpeyton or your opinions are hateful, it's whether bigotry is or isn't. You seem to keep missing that point.

Oh, and your smilies STILL aren't making you seem clever.
That's fine and all but you don't seem to be getting it. Just because you think it's "irrational hate" doesn't mean it is as people "draw the line" in different places. I've already stated that I don't like what he spouts(I drew the line) but from where my line sits, it includes others like Jpeyton whereas your line only seems to put BB across it and not others. There are many topics to consider and one may have different lines but you can bet none of the lines match up between people.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,702
49
91
..obama is the vehicle the old liberal hacks use to regain power. all under the guise of "change".
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
...
Most secularists have any idea how vast and sophisticated the machinery of the extreme right's propaganda machine really is. They have mastered every form of media. They are extrememly politically savy, and have an acute sense of how to target their outreach to the most vulnerable demographics. The intimate "in you living room" setting is a charade just like any sitcom; filmed in a dark empty studio warehouse, with no one around but a few camera grips. Not a shocking relevation, but certainly emblematic of how society can be so easily manipulated by a small cabal of extremists with their modern-day megaphones and light shows.
...
Herein lies the reason it is so much work to debunk the extreme right's propaganda. One must get down in their dirt to first understand the machinations. It is, in an understated way, extremely distasteful. It's similar to criminal detectives having to think like the criminal to understand their next move so it can be subverted.

Their methods are really dishonest. Ironic for a purportedly religious group...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY