Chuck Glasgow

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-21 02:24pm

Grumbles

You know the way you keep this close minded "All Religion is Wrong/Evil" matra going really does count as some nasty hypocracy DW.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-21 02:36pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Grumbles

You know the way you keep this close minded "All Religion is Wrong/Evil" matra going really does count as some nasty hypocracy DW.

Same way he closed this thread:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=6422

But lets Christanity bashing threads grow by the dozens, even though
they've all been rehashed countless times before..

And also the same way Wong turns down offers to bash
Fundie Muslims, since it would "require him to read
another boring-as-fuck book"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 02:41pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Grumbles

You know the way you keep this close minded "All Religion is Wrong/Evil" matra going really does count as some nasty hypocracy DW.

Care to find quotes where I say that all religion is evil, as opposed to all religion being irrational and fundies being evil?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 02:44pm

Shep, you're a fucking moron. The "what happened before the Big Bang" thread was in no way hostile to atheism. I closed it because it was duplicating old material, not because it was an atheist-bashing thread. Verilon was genuinely curious.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-21 02:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:Shep, you're a fucking moron. The "what happened before the Big Bang" thread was in no way hostile to atheism. I closed it because it was duplicating old material, not because it was an atheist-bashing thread. Verilon was genuinely curious.

This thread FUCKING DUPLICATES OLD MATERIAL

I've seen everything in this fucking thread before.

Why not just delete all the religious threads here and just make a sticky
for everyone here to read?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-21 02:50pm

Ok, let me rephrase that, You continually say that people that believe in Religion are Closed mined. And commit tons of phallacies.

Yet, you never respond to:

1. Your dislike of all religions is very closeminded

2. Your Ivory Tower Responses to the Rights of State to preserve it's self. vs. the Rights of the individual.

3. You show an incapability of the placing oneself in the view point of another

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 03:07pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Ok, let me rephrase that, You continually say that people that believe in Religion are Closed mined. And commit tons of phallacies.

I have repeatedly asked you to list and characterize these fallacies. You have been silent.

Yet, you never respond to:

1. Your dislike of all religions is very closeminded

How so? Is there any fact which I am ignoring? Is there any logic which I am refusing to acknowledge? How do you define "close-minded?"

2. Your Ivory Tower Responses to the Rights of State to preserve it's self. vs. the Rights of the individual.

What does that have to do with religion? That is politics. And I'm not sure what statements you're referring to.

3. You show an incapability of the placing oneself in the view point of another

Not at all. I have never advocated hurting anyone. All I do is tell people the truth (religion is irrational, fundies are evil), which I can defend logically and objectively if necessary. I slam people if they slam me, and I slam people if they're dogmatically refusing to accept the facts (ie- "mockery of stupid people"). I expect no different in return.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-21 03:10pm

Darth Wong wrote: Not at all. I have never advocated hurting anyone. All I do is tell people the truth (religion is irrational, fundies are evil), which I can defend logically and objectively if necessary. I slam people if they slam me, and I slam people if they're dogmatically refusing to accept the facts (ie- "mockery of stupid people"). I expect no different in return.

Your 'truth' is that $10,000 dollars is "peanuts", and that we should "just
give the criminal waht they want"

Sounds a hell of a lot like advising a woman to give a rapist what they want
so they won't be hurt....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 03:30pm

Hey look, it's Mr. "Knock every discussion off-course until it fits into my personal issues" Shep!

I never said "give the criminal what he wants", Shep. I just disagreed with vigilantism. But please, continue loving that strawman.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-11-21 03:41pm

Shep, fucking shut your fucking mouth, you fucking bitch.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-11-21 05:20pm

Darth Wong wrote: I never said "give the criminal what he wants", Shep. I just disagreed with vigilantism. But please, continue loving that strawman.

Vigilantism is when you decide to go out into the streets and run over
every gang member in a 30 minute radius, not resisting a criminal who
is trying to mug you.

Over and over your response to being mugged, "is give him the money"

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-21 06:17pm

Of course that was contridicted by what he said about the fucking pedophiles. So it's not ok to shoot the gang banger mugging you or ripping off your house, but it is ok to beat a pedophile with a baseball bat?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 06:22pm

I'm getting genuinely sick of this twisted, ridiculous definition of "open minded" that people seem to have. In order to be open minded, we're required to give validity to logically invalid ideas, and if we point out that they're logically invalid or reject them on that basis, we're "close-minded"?

Who the fuck are you fooling?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-21 06:35pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Of course that was contridicted by what he said about the fucking pedophiles. So it's not ok to shoot the gang banger mugging you or ripping off your house, but it is ok to beat a pedophile with a baseball bat?

Actually, there is a difference.

Most robbers (and I've been robbed before) will not resort to violence if the person comply. In fact, the chances of getting injured may increase if you resist. And it's a bit extreme to kill someone that only wanted your wallet.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, will harm you, or worse, will harm and possibly kill your children. They exist solely for that. Like the Washington shooter, It's everyone right to put a bullet inside someone who you know is planning to physically harm you, or worse.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to protect your property, you do. I'm saying that robbing is not such a potentially threat as pedophilie, or murder, and that must enter the equation to determine the apopropriate way to face the threat.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 06:48pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:Of course that was contridicted by what he said about the fucking pedophiles. So it's not ok to shoot the gang banger mugging you or ripping off your house, but it is ok to beat a pedophile with a baseball bat?

Yes. Robbery and pedophilia are at much different points on the scale, YB. Why do you have a problem with this? You don't seriously think theft of property is just as bad as baby-rape, do you?

In the specific example Shep mentioned, I pointed out that life > property. Therefore, vigilantism in defense of property is not justified; it's only justified in self-defense. You should look at the original thread before leaping to conclusions about what I was saying. In the case of pedophiles, to beat the shit out of them is to protect children. I see no problem with that.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-21 06:53pm

My dad & Stepmom live in an area where gang led Home invasion type robberies are common place.

These scum, rape, murder, and threaten to kill your family if you don't comply with their demands, and have been known do so anyways.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-21 06:59pm

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:My dad & Stepmom live in an area where gang led Home invasion type robberies are common place.

These scum, rape, murder, and threaten to kill your family if you don't comply with their demands, and have been known do so anyways.

Then it would be self-defense. An armed home invader is an obvious threat to life and limb. In the thread under discussion, we were talking about a non-self defense situation in which the only thing at stake was money.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 07:02pm

Solitary muggers/thieves aren't the same as gangs. If it's a gang, it's completely different. A gang will feel more secure, so it will do things that a single member of that gang wouldn't normally do on his own. If you simply give a mugger your wallet, he'll more than likely just tell you to lay face-down on the ground and run off. He wants your money, not a murder charge.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-11-21 07:32pm

True, most of mugger/Druggies are rarely violent. I used to work at 7-11 during the graveyard shift. Actually many of them would just leave me alone just by projecting a certian degree of confidence.

I try to avoid being violent. I have hurt someone who tried to rape me. I also hurt someone who assulted a woman.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-21 07:35pm

Yup, that's about it. Muggers rarely go after someone who walks with a straight back and eyes forward. They're looking for weak people.