Anti-fundie virus

[HemlockGrey]

Question.

How is this mess the PLO's fault? I mean, which group of people forcibly moved in on a piece of territory they had no legal right to, exiled half it's population, and now subjects that population to brutal oppresssion, which in turn helps brew the feelings that fuel the bombings that get the mess blamed on the victims?

[Darth Wong]

A particular reference to the incident, if you'd be so kind?

Why not just check the Google listings of news reports and articles pertaining to this subject?

Are all sins suddenly equal? That seems a very biblical concept, to be blunt. Yes, the Israelis can and do commit wrong, but the Palestinians regularly do worse in their homicide bombings, which are supported by their theoretically legitimate government, and to condemn both states equally for actions which are far different in severity is ludicrous.

You act as though Israel's sins are so small, and Palestine's so large, that for me to disagree is somehow a quasi-Biblical argument. That is sidestepping your responsibility to show that this is, in fact, the case rather than casting rhetoric under the assumption that you don't need to. BTW, do you believe that enslaving millions for decades is no big deal?

(Sabra and Shatila, for the record, were not genocide. They consisted of a few hundred murders carried out by Lebanese irregulars as part of a military operation in a Beirut suburb that was heavily fortified by PLO holdouts. The Israeli Left then seized on the event as a political propaganda tool to try and regain power - And the rest of the world followed suit and it got even more twisted.)

You did exactly as I predicted; you tried to justify the massacre. It's just a "few hundred murders". And the Israelis didn't commit it; they just send in their henchmen, trapped the victims in the compound, and listened to them dying all night. I knew you would try to justify it.

Unless they're Arabs in the occupied territories, in which case they have no rights and they must watch as ethnic Jews in those same occupied territories do have rights. Minor (cough cough apartheid cough) exception to your rule?

Well, King Hussein rejected the Allon Plan, so why don't they blame him, and his son for that matter? That would have placed the West Bank and Gaza under Jordanian control. Granted, notable portions of the West Bank would have become Israeli, but the main population centers would remain Palestinian

Split into chunks, subject to all of the restrictions I mentioned before. You regard that as sovereignty? It would merely place part of Jordan under effective Israeli rule.

But King Hussein refused to accept it, despite the gain for his country involved. The Israelis wanted to get rid of the major Palestinian population centers; the Arabs refused to accept them. Why? Because then there'd have been no outlet for dissidents from the Arab world to go off and fight against The Jew rather than their own regimes. There's a third party here, just as guilty as HAMAS and Hezbollah IMO.

You know, this situation is much more obvious when you look at the Allon plan on a map. Bite-size pieces of land rather than a contiguous piece, with full Israeli control of movement between those pieces.

It is, bluntly, the fault of the Palestinian Liberation Organization to begin with. By perpetuating the idea of the Two-State solution, and moving away from the renewed possibility of something similiar to the Allon Plan, which could have met the needs of most of the Palestinian populace, in addition to Israeli security needs, they were trying to further their own try agenda: The destruction of Israel.

Since they have never been offered a viable plan (the Allon plan does not give them anything remotely resembling a livable arrangement), who are you to categorically state that they would refuse it? Yes, they would like to see Israel gone. And Israel would like to see them gone. The point is that if a workable arrangement were laid on the table and they still refused, you might have a point. But I've seen the Allon plan on a map, and it is not a workable plan. The Israelis have never presented a workable plan that doesn't involve the effective perpetuation of the status quo in which Palestinians live under effective Israeli overlordship.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Only a blithering idiot could seriously argue that liberals have done more damage to human society throughout history than fundies.

I can remember when we had good old fashioned toys back in the 1980s,
and when MEGATRON turned into a fucking GUN....now he has to turn into
a tank......

Or how you could find good old fashioned toy guns at Toys 'R Us in the 80s,
now....the only thing is cheesy "laser guns" from Star Wars....

Does anyone else find it sick that MKSheppard is comparing the witch trials, inquisition, the holocaust, etc. to not being able to buy a toy gun?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. MK, get a real gun and blow yourself away.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

How do you measure his intelligence? He is clearly not rational if he belongs to a cult.

I beg to differ (waits for flames). To belong to a cult is not irrational; the beliefs are.

I agree, of course I may be biased cause I run a cult.

[Pavel]

EmperorMing,Before you get rid of the Mid Eastern problemo by eliminating it, cover your ass and try to fix it, cause if the Mid Eastern problem is'int solved shortly after this, it will ignite and boost a supernovae that might kick your grandma's boney ass from the tomb all the way up into low orbit.
Mid eastern problem is closely related to more than 2 & a half billion people in this solar system even if you dumped your silly ancestors belliefs who emmerged originaly from the middle east, you still have responsibility to try to fix things rationaly and give everyone his stuff back, especially for those who are ready and stand by to die to get it back.
[/size]Well, this *could* get rid of the Mid East problem on a permanent basis...


"We are standing by to unleash the bioweapon, sir..."[/quote]

[C.S.Strowbridge]

For every Israeli that dies from Palestinian terrorism, 5 Palestinians die from Israeli soldiers. Your math is seriously deficient.
I'd like to know where you got that number.

OK, I pulled it from memory. Your source says 3 to 1 instead of 5 to 1; the point remains. And its attempt to blame the victim (even when it is a stone-throwing youth against a tank) is simply laughable. Perhaps you missed the UN report on human-rights violations in the occupied territories? Routine use of "summary justice?" The point remains that your attempt to claim Israeli moral superiority is a waste of time; I do not claim that the Palestinians are morally perfect; just that the American media's attempt to portray this as good vs evil is idiotic.

A couple of points:

1.) It's never Stone Thrower vs. Tank. It's Stone Thrower vs. Infantry with Tank support. And someone throwing a stone can kill or injury an infantryman.

2.) It's not Good vs. Evil, it's Smart vs. Dumb. If all you have is a stone and the enemy has a machine gun you have two options. 1.) Put the stone down and walk away (Smart) or hurl that stone and risk retaliation (Dumb.) It's not like anyone expects the Israelis to put down their guns and start throwing stones back.

3.) If three Palestinians die for every Israeli killed, then the best way to reduce Palestinian deaths is to stop killing Israelis. But the rest of the Arabs don't want that. Middle East Peace is bad for the oil industry.

[Pavel]

You're clearly deeply engaged in the palestine israel manifesto, and wong is trying desperately to cool you off, but you will not because you're obviously grew-up on hatered and the idea that arabs hate jews and they must be eliminated so you can live, everybody has the right to colonize and battle to conquer and grow, read my profile, jews were late for that but are doing their best to mark their spot and rise their flag on this planet, damn why you were so late? in the nuclear era? the us is trying hard to deffend you from devastating attacks from neighbouring arabs by eliminating all kinds of radio active research and development on arab soil, you say you have nukes and you can blow up arab countries, i say you're either stupid or you're stupid, in the first gulf war, skud missiles from iraq were blowing in downtown telaviv:
what if those missiles had chemical or nuclear heads the size of a tv set on'em?
and why did'nt israeli deffence force hit back nukes on baghdad when they saw the first skuds with possible nukes on'em coming towards them from baghdad?
you wait for the first radio active explosion to accur and then realize it's nuclear and say let's hit back the same kind, somebody knew what those rockets have.

i'm not saying you're lying about having nuclear capabilities, but you have to look behind the general picture to see that it won't happen, israel will not work, sooner or later it will be empty of citizens and full of military power, the number of tanks and airplanes is getting more than the population, and you're on the verge of financial and political breakdown, unless you release nukes on irak, saudi arabia, iran, syria, egypt, pakistan, indonesia and wait for the outcome which is another sad story for you and me and wong to discuss in 6 feet under.

OK, I pulled it from memory. Your source says 3 to 1 instead of 5 to 1; the point remains. And its attempt to blame the victim (even when it is a stone-throwing youth against a tank) is simply laughable. Perhaps you missed the UN report on human-rights violations in the occupied territories? Routine use of "summary justice?" The point remains that your attempt to claim Israeli moral superiority is a waste of time; I do not claim that the Palestinians are morally perfect; just that the American media's attempt to portray this as good vs evil is idiotic.

Just as a question, Mike.. This is the same UN which has Syria on the Security Council, and such countries as the Sudan in human rights councils, etc? I would not possibly call their reports unbiased in the least. Of course, I have to admit that it's entirely possible that no unbiased reporting on the Intifada exists.

(As a particular nit-pick, I cannot think of a particular instance where a tank engaged only stone-throwers with lethal ammunition. The usual situation is that interspersed among the stone throwers are guys with AKs or even older Enfields. Occasionally grenade launchers. They're usually dealt with by APCs and sometimes tanks; the Palestinians have even taken out a few Merkavas with mines in such situations, and have damaged APCs and inflicted casualties. It's hardly an entirely one-sided affair even against the refugee-camp mobs.)

I think David's particular point, though, was that the Israelis had the capability to use their nuclear weapons to devastate the Middle East (For example, a single nuclear device could breach the Aswan High Dam, which would kill on the order of 90% of Egypt's population in a single afternoon and literally wipe that nation off the map, and Israel has around 200. Another 5, along with 20-30 conventional strikes, could depopulate Saudi Arabia - It's all about water) and haven't tried to do so. OTOH, the Arab States have repeatedly attacked Israel with the stated goal of wiping the nation off the map. They've failed miserably, but it was a case of intent.

IMO, the situation is simply that you have a working parliamentary democracy in Israel - but one that is divided between many different views on Jewish society. There are Jews who are fully secular, they're simply Israelis. There are conservatives; and there are fanatical, hard-liners, including the settlers, as bad as their enemies in HAMAS and Hezbollah. And there are also the Druze, and the Bedouin Arabs, both of whom are treated essentially as equals, because they were willing to adapt to the Israeli State.

The Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike, didn't, and the Muslim segment developed these radical groups in the extreme to press home the Palestinian agenda - Which is fundamentally flawed. The State of Jordan is 70% Palestinian, and should legitimately be the only Palestinian State (The plan to carve up the cis-Jordan was never fully effected; the second Palestinian State was subsumed into the Jordan, and they are one State. Really, the PLO could be considered a group of Jordanians fighting for liberation against an occupying force - Who have then gone on to claim that the part of the country occupied by Israel is an entirely new country). We don't need a second Palestine. The effort to create it is purely the effort to destroy Israel, and fund a corrupt system of extortion, terror, and murder on the part of the PLO, HAMAS, and Hezbollah.

Now, I think if this was an equitable settlement between nations, Jordan and Israel could carve up the West Bank to their satisfaction, and the Gaza Strip, perhaps could go to Egypt, or become independent in some fashion. But there are factors at work on both sides to prevent this, and in the center are this terrorists and criminals who must be wiped out before any solution can be effected, two State or three State.

[Cpt_Frank]

1.) It's never Stone Thrower vs. Tank. It's Stone Thrower vs. Infantry with Tank support. And someone throwing a stone can kill or injury an infantryman.

They throw the stones at the tank. Not the infantry.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Stupidity ain't a crime.

[haas mark]

Stupidity ain't a crime.

That's debatable...

[Vympel]

Even if they were throwing stones at the infantry (which they don't) one has to wonder at what someone is thinking when they try and plug a child with a BULLET for it.

[NecronLord]

Third Way Soloution.

In this experiment there is a way to eliminate the fundie element, without killing them.

Discolsure of the existance of the virus

If you were to discloes the existance of the virus, not only would it alter the behaviour of the fundamentalists (sword of democles) There wouls also be far few people converting to fundie-ness. In a generation or two there would be no funides left.

There would doubtless be some millitant fundies who would attempt to destroy the virus, however if it is held in a secure enough location, they have no chance.

Pros

• No mess, no dead fundies
  
  No more fundies taking over, instead they would behave themselves.

The tarkin doctrine, ain't it great?

[haas mark]

Third Way Soloution.

In this experiment there is a way to eliminate the fundie element, without killing them.

Discolsure of the existance of the virus

If you were to discloes the existance of the virus, not only would it alter the behaviour of the fundamentalists (sword of democles) There wouls also be far few people converting to fundie-ness. In a generation or two there would be no funides left.

There would doubtless be some millitant fundies who would attempt to destroy the virus, however if it is held in a secure enough location, they have no chance.

Pros

• No mess, no dead fundies
  
  No more fundies taking over, instead they would behave themselves.

The tarkin doctrine, ain't it great?

Cons:

*chirp chirp*

[NecronLord]

Third Way Soloution.

In this experiment there is a way to eliminate the fundie element, without killing them.

Discolsure of the existance of the virus

If you were to discloes the existance of the virus, not only would it alter the behaviour of the fundamentalists (sword of democles) There wouls also be far few people converting to fundie-ness. In a generation or two there would be no funides left.

There would doubtless be some millitant fundies who would attempt to destroy the virus, however if it is held in a secure enough location, they have no chance.

Pros

• No mess, no dead fundies
  
  No more fundies taking over, instead they would behave themselves.

The tarkin doctrine, ain't it great?

Cons:

*chirp chirp*

[Darth Wong]

A couple of points:

1.) It's never Stone Thrower vs. Tank. It's Stone Thrower vs. Infantry with Tank support. And someone throwing a stone can kill or injury an infantryman.

Even Israeli human-rights groups acknowledge that there are hundreds of pointless killings of children. See some of the links on the index I pointed out to Marina. We're talking about 6 year olds on bicycles, and roadside bombs being deliberately planted by the Israelis. The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of any weapon in occupied territory which is too indiscriminate to target combatants without also killing nearby civilians; the Israelis are in such blatant breach of this protocol that people seem to forget that it exists.

2.) It's not Good vs. Evil, it's Smart vs. Dumb. If all you have is a stone and the enemy has a machine gun you have two options. 1.) Put the stone down and walk away (Smart) or hurl that stone and risk retaliation (Dumb.) It's not like anyone expects the Israelis to put down their guns and start throwing stones back.

If protesters did that to the police in North America and the police gunned them down, we would consider it an outrage. If it happens in Palestine, it's OK?

3.) If three Palestinians die for every Israeli killed, then the best way to reduce Palestinian deaths is to stop killing Israelis.

And accept perpetual subjugation.

[haas mark]

Cons:

*chirp chirp*

lol there's no real cons to it except this one that I just thought of: essentially, you are brainwashing the public (unfortunately, yes, fundies are humans, too....)

[Pavel]

Yeah, she's right,

For every Israeli that dies from Palestinian terrorism, 5 Palestinians die from Israeli soldiers. Your math is seriously deficient.
I'd like to know where you got that number.

OK, I pulled it from memory. Your source says 3 to 1 instead of 5 to 1; the point remains. And its attempt to blame the victim (even when it is a stone-throwing youth against a tank) is simply laughable. Perhaps you missed the UN report on human-rights violations in the occupied territories? Routine use of "summary justice?" The point remains that your attempt to claim Israeli moral superiority is a waste of time; I do not claim that the Palestinians are morally perfect; just that the American media's attempt to portray this as good vs evil is idiotic.

A couple of points:

1.) It's never Stone Thrower vs. Tank. It's Stone Thrower vs. Infantry with Tank support. And someone throwing a stone can kill or injury an infantryman.

2.) It's not Good vs. Evil, it's Smart vs. Dumb. If all you have is a stone and the enemy has a machine gun you have two options. 1.) Put the stone down and walk away (Smart) or hurl that stone and risk retaliation (Dumb.) It's not like anyone expects the Israelis to put down their guns and start throwing stones back.

3.) If three Palestinians die for every Israeli killed, then the best way to reduce Palestinian deaths is to stop killing Israelis. But the rest of the Arabs don't want that. Middle East Peace is bad for the oil industry.

[NecronLord]

Cons:

*chirp chirp*

lol there's no real cons to it except this one that I just thought of: essentially, you are brainwashing the public (unfortunately, yes, fundies are humans, too....)

I don't think dissuading people from being moronic qualifies as brainwasing. It achives most with least collateral damage.

[haas mark]

lol there's no real cons to it except this one that I just thought of: essentially, you are brainwashing the public (unfortunately, yes, fundies are humans, too....)

I don't think dissuading people from being moronic qualifies as brainwasing. It achives most with least collateral damage.

It does when it involves unnatural means. An dit's not "dissuading." It's changing their behavior patterns against their will. THAT is brainwashing.

[MKSheppard]

Does anyone else find it sick that MKSheppard is comparing the witch trials, inquisition, the holocaust, etc. to not being able to buy a toy gun?

And that's not all....I remember when you could actually buy a school
lunch at school with CASH....now they don't even accept CASH anymore...
you have to punch in a Student Identification Number to BUY food at
School......

And Strowey, do us all a favor and read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's THE GULAG
ARCHIPELAGO.....

ESpecially this quote:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things
have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night
to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive
and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass
arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of
the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs,
paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every
step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to
lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a
dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?
[...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of
officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst,
the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

(_The Gulag Archipelago_, Chapter 1 "Arrest", fn. 5)

[David]

I'll get to data_link first then answer Mike.


Data_link, the reason I assumed that you meant all people holding to some belief thast could not be backed up with scientific proof was because you stated it in your first post.

The human population would be substantially reduced (although, this might be a good thing)

You stated that the human population would be substantially reduced. In this were obviously not talking about a small segment of the human population.

You also said

Any good efforts supported by fundies (most charities, for instance) would be lost.

Do you think these massive organizations are supported by a few bigots? They are supported by hundreds of thousands of people donating their time and money to a good cause. Why would they do this if they were bigots in the first place?

Of course, then you tried to worm your way out of your original statement by redefining it mid-debate.

This virus does not, and cannot, infect those who are religious but are nice enough to avoid using those beliefs to justify bigoted or opressive behavior. This does not target people for being religous or engaging in acts of worship. It only targets fundies , who are guilty of using their religious beliefs to proclaim themselves superior to others.

I suggest you open a dictionary, because your idea of a fundamentalist is skewed. A fundamentalist is anyone who believes in the strict adherence to a set of core beliefs. Am I a fundie then? Yes! I have a set of values I am absolutely not will to compromise or change just because I meet someone with a different set of values that calls me a bigot. Do I think I am superior to others because of this, yes. I am absolutely opposed to murder, and I do think I am superior to anyone who think it is okay to murder someone as long as they get to do the choosing.

On the other hand, I have personally been present at a gay wedding, where the marriage was not legally recognised because the law doesn't allow gay marriage. I have personally witnessed people being beat up solely for being gay. I have personally met people who have been rejected by their families simply for believing in evolution - and I hear you, trying to tell me that "fundies aren't immoral, because they have had no EFFECT!!!"

How odd, you stated at first that this wasn't about morality, then you turn around and justify your actions because you say fundies are immoral. You say that they are immoral because they deny you the right to a gay marriage, because they beat up people who are not like them, and they reject their own family members who choose a different belief.

Did you ever stop to think that fundies consider you immoral for tring to force them to allow gay marriages? As far as someone being beat goes, anyone with a desire for violence will justify it somehow. Whether it be for Jesus, Allah, or " for the greater good of humanity." As to someone being reject for their beliefs, I've seen friends rejected by their families because " they found God."


What I see here is a coin with two sides. The coin being hatred for another because of the beliefs that they hold, and the two sides being the fundies willing to kill for their beliefs like the people that kill abortion doctors and like the Islamic Infada. On the other side of the coin I see you, willing to kill anyone not willing to conform to your set of ideals and beliefs, whether those beliefs are right or wrong.


Did you ever stop to consider what the other side might do?

Here is a new scenario: A crack team of Islam researchers in an underground bunker in Iraq are working to create a new biological weapon. Saddam comes to them and says in his best data_link voice, " Design me a weapon that will kill all who I believe are wrong in this world. Make it kill all the women who are not servial and do not wrap their heads, all people who do not believe I am the reincarnation of Muhammad, all people who seek to have wealth without my permission. After all, I'm doing this for the good of the world."

Mean while, in some Virgina wood lodge in the middle of a militia training camp, some guy who hasn't seen a city in years says, " Let's build a weapon that will kill all who we say are wrong. Target it at the gays and the liberals and the people who want to take our guns. After all, I'm doing this for the good of the world."

Mean while, a group of rabid Christians are working on a new weapon. " Let's build a bomb," they say, " that will kill all who we say are wrong. All of thoise with AIDS, and who are gay, and who do not accept Jesus as God. After all, it's for the good of the world."

Mean while in 1930's Germany, Hitler tells his researchers, " Build me a weapon that will kill all those who are wrong in the world. All those who oppose me, all those who are Jewish or Gypsy, or non-Aryan for that matter. After all, it's for the good of the world."

Mean while data_link proposes that the world would be a better place if all fundies, creationists, and basically anyone who didn't agree with him be put to death. After all, it's for the good of the world.

So if they all release the virus at the same time, who on Earth would survive? Those who are right? You or them?


Perhaps a new scenario would satisfy you. How about, "Everyone dies who does not act rationally."

Well what is the scientist who made this plaque decided that evolution was achieved through massive jumps, and you believed it was achieved through a series of small changes. How would you like it he came to you and said, " It is obvious to me that my way is correct and yours is wrong. Therefore, you are acting in an irrational way and for this I sentence you to death."

Not so fun to be on the pointy end of the arguement does it?

Yet, they are the strongest carriers of this disease called stupidity, and the disease can only be cured once the source is removed. This hypothetical virus is a means of doing that. The ONLY question is, does their right as people to live supercede humanity's right to be free of an intellectual plauge that it has suffered since the beginning of civillization?

So do fundies have a right to live. Yes!

Do people who don't agree with you have a right to live? Yes!

If you were truely serious about making the world a better place, your original question would have read,



"Would the world be a better place if every person whom had a desire to kill or hurt another died of an engineered plaque?"


I don't think you would have had a single NO vote, but you didn't do that. You asked if the world would be better if a certain, signifigant portion of the human population was wiped out for no other reason than disagreeing with you.

I don't care if the beliefs you hold are correct, if I believe pink flying elephants named dumbo are the masters of the universe, it is does not give you the right to re-educate me, re-train me, or think for me. It most certainly does not give you the right to kill me.

It all comes down to who gets to decided who lives and dies, and you don't have that right. If you think you do, then I and several billion other human beings take issue with that.

So before anyone marches of with the righteousness of murder for a good cause and a Heil data_link! on their lips, just remember that Hitler and every other dictator throughout history would be proud of you, and that you are nothing but the other side of the coin of hatred.

[HemlockGrey]

I was going to say something really profound, but David beat me too it. Ah well, it's all over bar the shouting.

[HemlockGrey]

So let's do some shouting.


To those who voted in favor the virus;

My, my, my, what sick fucks art thou. By admitting that fundies, for the unforgivable crime of disagreeing with you, are deserving of death, you have lowered yourself to their level. You, dear forumites, are now bigots and purveyors of a far worse depravity, and when the virus comes it will be right and fitting that you shall be the first against the wall.

[David]

No amount of teaching can force someone to be logical. That does not change the fact that there is a rational path, and fundies are taught not to travel it.

No amount of teaching can force someone to be illogical. How many members here have said that they were raised in a fundie home, and chose to reject the teaching they were brought up with in favor of aethism?

Quite a few. It undoubtedly helped that they were exposed to other points of view before becoming too old. Why do you think so many fundies insist on home-schooling their kids?

Because they wish to instill their system of beliefs, whether right or wrong, on their children. If every school taught creation and allowed none to question it, wouldn't you do the same with your children? Saying that someone will or won't reject or accept something based on their upbringing is wrong. You might as well say that if someone is brought up in an abusive home, and if they are never exposed to anything different, then they will consider that to be the proper way of parenting. i personally know this is untrue. My father's life was a living hell until he moved out of his house, but he has never been anything but loving and kind to me and my siblings.

[Pu-239]

I have to admit I voted yes, due to paranoid notions that the fundies were going to go around killing people and screwing the world, but I would have to vote no if they are just regular fundies