CNN: Retarded panel discussion on atheist discrimination

[Magus]

Off topic, I know, but this has always annoyed me, that the 1 person in 10,000 gets to veto the decisions made by the other 9,999. How, exactly, is this different from a monarchy or an oligarchy, where the one or the few get to decide things?

Rhetorical question, BTW: The First Amendment and the ones after guarantee freedom of religion, and that includes freedom from religion, in the form of atheism. Therefore, mandatory prayer is infringing on previously enumerated rights, and unConstitutional. [/rant]

It's important to consider that the populace in general had to democratically agree to limit their powers - when the first amendment was ratified, the voters specifically chose to limit their own democratic power in regards to the establishment of religion - so that the government would not promote or remove religion, even if such a move would be popular and democratically obtainable.

[darthbob88]

The difference is quite simple darthbob88. That 1 in 1000 only applies when your restricting things, or forcing things on people. The 1 in 1000 for example does NOT decide the taxation rate, or how many people we enlist in the army each year. The only power of that 1 in 1000 is when you make EVERYONE do something for less than clear or explainable reasons.

Nearly all of the one in thousand examples are religious based.

Yeah, I understand all that. It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or some fundie campaigning for prayer in schools and a ban on contraceptives. One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

[Teebs]

Yeah, I understand all that. It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or some fundie campaigning for prayer in schools and a ban on contraceptives. One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

It's not just one individual though. It's one individual campaigning and then the Supreme Court deciding based on the nation's constitution. A completely different set of circumstances.

[Darth Wong]

The difference is quite simple darthbob88. That 1 in 1000 only applies when your restricting things, or forcing things on people. The 1 in 1000 for example does NOT decide the taxation rate, or how many people we enlist in the army each year. The only power of that 1 in 1000 is when you make EVERYONE do something for less than clear or explainable reasons.

Nearly all of the one in thousand examples are religious based.

Yeah, I understand all that. It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or some fundie campaigning for prayer in schools and a ban on contraceptives. One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

Yeah, like that damned Rosa Parks. One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe, right? Fucktard.

[K. A. Pital]

And what the hell does "Under God" have to do with America? Nothing. It's a piece of bullshit introduced by a bunch of radical antileftist, ultraconservative religious hacks. Removing it would be doing America a big favour.

[Lagmonster]

One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

Put more simply, Bob, one individual possessing too much indiscriminate power is not the same as one individual championing an obvious human rights cause against an ignorant majority.

[darthbob88]

One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

Put more simply, Bob, one individual possessing too much indiscriminate power is not the same as one individual championing an obvious human rights cause against an ignorant majority.

Oh, aye, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, there's an obvious difference. What gives me difficulty is telling the one individual who wants the world to go his way from the one who wants the world to be fair and proper. Ah, well. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Darth Wong]

One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

Put more simply, Bob, one individual possessing too much indiscriminate power is not the same as one individual championing an obvious human rights cause against an ignorant majority.

Oh, aye, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, there's an obvious difference. What gives me difficulty is telling the one individual who wants the world to go his way from the one who wants the world to be fair and proper. Ah, well. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

You're honestly so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference between being treated unfairly by the government and wanting to treat others unfairly?

[darthbob88]

Oh, aye, looking back with 20/20 hindsight, there's an obvious difference. What gives me difficulty is telling the one individual who wants the world to go his way from the one who wants the world to be fair and proper. Ah, well. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

You're honestly so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference between being treated unfairly by the government and wanting to treat others unfairly?

Not in those words, no. I'm saying I can't see the difference between an individual who wants attention and power, and an individual who wants their fair share, when all I have to look at is one side of the argument, like a history textbook or an article in a newspaper. In real time and today's media, it is difficult to tell the one from the other. Now please, this is my opinion, my personal and poorly-reasoned belief, and I feel that its relevance to this discussion has vanished. Can we drop it and get back to the CNN panel?

[Edi]

No, as long as you keep harping on it. If you can't back your personal belief with something like evidence or facts, it's useless when debating factual issues.

Besides, in today's media, it is arguably easier to take a look at both sides of an issue given how much information is available so easily. It just requires some actual effort to look it up, and in this issue it is rather clear where the lines are drawn.

Edi

[General Zod]

The difference is quite simple darthbob88. That 1 in 1000 only applies when your restricting things, or forcing things on people. The 1 in 1000 for example does NOT decide the taxation rate, or how many people we enlist in the army each year. The only power of that 1 in 1000 is when you make EVERYONE do something for less than clear or explainable reasons.

Nearly all of the one in thousand examples are religious based.

Yeah, I understand all that. It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, or some fundie campaigning for prayer in schools and a ban on contraceptives. One individual, changing matters over the entire nation. Just ain't safe.

Fuck forbid we get a phrase that explicitly supports a religion and violates the amendment that states the government will not do exactly that. Or are you really so stpuid you believe that "Under God" has always been in the pledge of allegiance from the start?

[darthbob88]

No, as long as you keep harping on it. If you can't back your personal belief with something like evidence or facts, it's useless when debating factual issues.

Besides, in today's media, it is arguably easier to take a look at both sides of an issue given how much information is available so easily. It just requires some actual effort to look it up, and in this issue it is rather clear where the lines are drawn.

Edi

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of. What I was asking for was that the rest of you cease harping on it while I do the same. I was making an observation and providing a personal opinion on the matter, which I did not intend to get past that single post, and which the rest of you disassembled into a small debate. Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

[Surlethe]

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of. What I was asking for was that the rest of you cease harping on it while I do the same. I was making an observation and providing a personal opinion on the matter, which I did not intend to get past that single post, and which the rest of you disassembled into a small debate. Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

I'm not going to turn this into an issue; I'm just curious what you mean by "no sort of fact you folk know of". Do you mean to say that there are facts out there that support your position, and we just don't know them? If so, why not present them?

[General Zod]

No, as long as you keep harping on it. If you can't back your personal belief with something like evidence or facts, it's useless when debating factual issues.

Besides, in today's media, it is arguably easier to take a look at both sides of an issue given how much information is available so easily. It just requires some actual effort to look it up, and in this issue it is rather clear where the lines are drawn.

Edi

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of. What I was asking for was that the rest of you cease harping on it while I do the same. I was making an observation and providing a personal opinion on the matter, which I did not intend to get past that single post, and which the rest of you disassembled into a small debate. Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

Providing an opinion is giving a review on a movie or something equally subjective and saying why it sucked. On the other hand, saying that something isn't safe is not providing an opinion, and you have to give something more than your gut instinct as to why it isn't if you're going to try claiming it as fact.

And holy shit I made typos galore in my earlier post.

[Darth Wong]

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of. What I was asking for was that the rest of you cease harping on it while I do the same. I was making an observation and providing a personal opinion on the matter, which I did not intend to get past that single post, and which the rest of you disassembled into a small debate.

As per the nature of this forum, dumb-shit. You do not just post a contentious "opinion" and then get surprised when people want to debate it. Moreover, you never explained what this "observation" was, upon which you based your opinion.

Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

Why? You are exhibiting precisely the mindset of those CNN fundie whores. Since we can't ask them what the fuck idiocy possesses them to say such stupid things, it's convenient that we have an example of this blinkered fucktard mindset right here. So answer the fucking question: why do you think this way?

[TithonusSyndrome]

CNN has always been a right-wing news network. The only reason people have forgotten that is the fact that FOXNews was even more extreme.

I remember reading "The Real Frank Zappa Book" and thinking about how much has changed since it's writing in 1988, because Zappa directed every ounce of cutting wit he could muster against the "right-wing journalists prominently displayed on CNN."

I guess this clip goes to show how little perspective I have, having grown up in the full waxing of Faux News.

[Rye]

Oh wow, a panel composed of theists at various stages of rabidity. You can smell the fairness from here.

If I'd been on it, I would've brought up prayer in public schools in nazi germany, and then asked the idiotic jew woman if she would accept "one nation under Hitler's ghost" as a legitimate and desirable thing to have on money and in the pledge of allegience, because Hitler's ghost would be no better when it comes to sucking up to than a God that says all unbelievers will be tortured forever in a concentration camp under the ground.

I would probably parody the shit out of that black woman too, saying "oh I don't believe in anything? Really? Did you use HOLY SPIRIT POWER to look into my mind to divine that? Did you channel MAGIC GHOSTS through me? Well maybe you should shut up about what I do or do not believe."

[Vyraeth]

It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Except the atheist isn't doing it for shits and giggles, he or she is lobbying a legitimate complaint. The whole fact that "under God" was never in the original Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in 1951.

Who exactly taught or told you otherwise? I'm not asking you sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious because you're not the only one to spout a bullshit example of atheists whining by talking about requests to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. It's damn near deceitful, though I assume you make the argument out of ignorance, and never bothered to look up who actually wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in the first place.

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of.

You know I've seen you pull this sort of shit in another thread too. I can't remember the specific thread, but you came in, stated something, refused to back it up, and then said that it was just your personal opinion and that you realized it couldn't be evidenced, etc.

My point is, why bring it up? It's like you're trying to get the last word in. The whole point of forums is to post things other people can read, right? If you're going to say something, why not actually spend time discussing it?

[darthbob88]

Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

Why? You are exhibiting precisely the mindset of those CNN fundie whores. Since we can't ask them what the fuck idiocy possesses them to say such stupid things, it's convenient that we have an example of this blinkered fucktard mindset right here. So answer the fucking question: why do you think this way?

Because I asked politely. Very well; I think this way for several reasons, first and foremost being the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, which means in and of itself that I think along different lines than most other people. Secondly, I am almost 19 years old, in my first year at college, and I have spent the 18 years previous on the family homestead, easily a mile away from anybody outside the family. This could easily be considered a sheltered life. And in answer to Surlethe's question, the facts in question are the sort you find after consuming large quantities of liquor, lysergic acid diethylamide, or even delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. I may presume that I need no longer provide the specific facts?

[General Zod]

Now, I ask again, I'm dropping it as an issue, will the rest of you do the same?

Why? You are exhibiting precisely the mindset of those CNN fundie whores. Since we can't ask them what the fuck idiocy possesses them to say such stupid things, it's convenient that we have an example of this blinkered fucktard mindset right here. So answer the fucking question: why do you think this way?

Because I asked politely. Very well; I think this way for several reasons, first and foremost being the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, which means in and of itself that I think along different lines than most other people. Secondly, I am almost 19 years old, in my first year at college, and I have spent the 18 years previous on the family homestead, easily a mile away from anybody outside the family. This could easily be considered a sheltered life. And in answer to Surlethe's question, the facts in question are the sort you find after consuming large quantities of liquor, lysergic acid diethylamide, or even delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. I may presume that I need no longer provide the specific facts?

Oooohhh, so you're one of those morons that likes using their mental disorders as a crutch to excuse themselves for bad behavior. So no, back your shit up or provide evidence. Or concede your points.

[darthbob88]

It's still annoying when I read about some atheist in California who wants to get "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance

Except the atheist isn't doing it for shits and giggles, he or she is lobbying a legitimate complaint. The whole fact that "under God" was never in the original Pledge of Allegiance. It was added in 1951.

Who exactly taught or told you otherwise? I'm not asking you sarcastically, I'm genuinely curious because you're not the only one to spout a bullshit example of atheists whining by talking about requests to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. It's damn near deceitful, though I assume you make the argument out of ignorance, and never bothered to look up who actually wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in the first place.

Nobody, I was using the atheist as an example. I don't care about the atheist, I don't care about the Pledge. What gives me the willies is the fact that one person with a good lawyer and the backing of an NGO can change things that were supported by the remainder of the population, the fact that one person can have so much influence. If it was a large number of people in a committee who petitioned to strike "under God", I would heartily approve. One man and a lawyer is what scares me.

Very well, then, I shall cease harping on it, drop it as an issue, and concede that my opinion here is based on no sort of fact you folk know of.

You know I've seen you pull this sort of shit in another thread too. I can't remember the specific thread, but you came in, stated something, refused to back it up, and then said that it was just your personal opinion and that you realized it couldn't be evidenced, etc.

My point is, why bring it up? It's like you're trying to get the last word in. The whole point of forums is to post things other people can read, right? If you're going to say something, why not actually spend time discussing it?

Because I'm a bleeding idiot, maliciously stupid, dumber'n a sack of hammers, go ahead and take your pick, or tell me which one I missed. Because I felt that it would be appropriate to provide my opinion, have it carefully considered by the readers, and rejected summarily. And the thread was one on "The Purpose of Religion", where I posted that I felt the purpose of religion was to provide a backing and a grounding for ethical codes. I got my arse royally handed to me.

[Darth Wong]

Because I asked politely.

In what kiddie world does "ask politely" mean "no responsibility for my own public statements?"

Very well; I think this way for several reasons, first and foremost being the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, which means in and of itself that I think along different lines than most other people. Secondly, I am almost 19 years old, in my first year at college, and I have spent the 18 years previous on the family homestead, easily a mile away from anybody outside the family. This could easily be considered a sheltered life.

So your "observations" are ... your personal ignorance of the outside world?

And in answer to Surlethe's question, the facts in question are the sort you find after consuming large quantities of liquor, lysergic acid diethylamide, or even delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. I may presume that I need no longer provide the specific facts?

Wrong. You must either provide those facts or stop calling them "facts". I don't know what the words "observations" or "facts" mean in DumbShitLand, but on this board, they refer to empirical information. Either admit that you have NO FACTS and NO OBSERVATIONS whatsoever to back up your ignorant bullshit, or provide some facts and observations.

[darthbob88]

Why? You are exhibiting precisely the mindset of those CNN fundie whores. Since we can't ask them what the fuck idiocy possesses them to say such stupid things, it's convenient that we have an example of this blinkered fucktard mindset right here. So answer the fucking question: why do you think this way?

Because I asked politely. Very well; I think this way for several reasons, first and foremost being the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, which means in and of itself that I think along different lines than most other people. Secondly, I am almost 19 years old, in my first year at college, and I have spent the 18 years previous on the family homestead, easily a mile away from anybody outside the family. This could easily be considered a sheltered life. And in answer to Surlethe's question, the facts in question are the sort you find after consuming large quantities of liquor, lysergic acid diethylamide, or even delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. I may presume that I need no longer provide the specific facts?

Oooohhh, so you're one of those morons that likes using their mental disorders as a crutch to excuse themselves for bad behavior. So no, back your shit up or provide evidence. Or concede your points.

Crutch? No. Explanation for "different thought" patterns, why the hell I thought that was a good idea? Yes. And I thought I conceded the point already. If not, it never hurts to do it again.

[General Zod]

Crutch? No. Explanation for "different thought" patterns, why the hell I thought that was a good idea? Yes. And I thought I conceded the point already. If not, it never hurts to do it again.

Because far too often people will go in and blurt out that they have mental disorder x, therefore they should be exempt from following the typical code of conduct. The fact that we have posters on here that do have asperger's and don't think like this shows that you're full of shit.

[darthbob88]

Because I asked politely.

In what kiddie world does "ask politely" mean "no responsibility for my own public statements?"

I had intended that to be scathingly sarcastic. I had no expectation that anybody would accept that as a reason, but it seemed like a good line at the time.

Very well; I think this way for several reasons, first and foremost being the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, which means in and of itself that I think along different lines than most other people. Secondly, I am almost 19 years old, in my first year at college, and I have spent the 18 years previous on the family homestead, easily a mile away from anybody outside the family. This could easily be considered a sheltered life.

So your "observations" are ... your personal ignorance of the outside world?

Got it in one.

And in answer to Surlethe's question, the facts in question are the sort you find after consuming large quantities of liquor, lysergic acid diethylamide, or even delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol. I may presume that I need no longer provide the specific facts?

Wrong. You must either provide those facts or stop calling them "facts". I don't know what the words "observations" or "facts" mean in DumbShitLand, but on this board, they refer to empirical information. Either admit that you have NO FACTS and NO OBSERVATIONS whatsoever to back up your ignorant bullshit, or provide some facts and observations.

I believe I just said that the facts in question were pink elephants, hash hallucinations, acid trips, and similar things. Isn't that good enough to be considered "no facts"?