CNN: Retarded panel discussion on atheist discrimination

[Vyraeth]

change things that were supported by the remainder of the population, the fact that one person can have so much influence.

But do you realize that with a statement like this you're subscribing to "mob mentality"?

Slavery was supported by the "remainder of the population", segregation was supported by the "remainder of the population", but does that make these things right?

If individuals or small groups of individuals didn't stand up to shirk these things off and make arguments against them, America would still be a pretty fucked up place, yeah?

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.

Why do you act like that? I generally don't insult people and I'm not going to personally attack you, so why act like I'm bullying you? I don't like it when people do that.

I don't know why you personally browse the forums, but if you're here to get anything out of it, then stop acting like you're feeling sorry for yourself, concede your points in a quick, maybe even polite, fashion and actually think about what people are saying.

[darthbob88]

change things that were supported by the remainder of the population, the fact that one person can have so much influence.

But do you realize that with a statement like this you're subscribing to "mob mentality"?

Slavery was supported by the "remainder of the population", segregation was supported by the "remainder of the population", but does that make these things right?

If individuals or small groups of individuals didn't stand up to shirk these things off and make arguments against them, America would still be a pretty fucked up place, yeah?

No argument. I am excessively conservative in that regard, and I have a dislike for changes. I did not realize I suffered from the "mob mentality", though, and thank you for pointing that out. I believe I said in the rest of the post that I approved of those small groups of people, and that what gave me trouble is the disproportionate influence of one individual with a lawyer when compared to the remainder of society.

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.

Why do you act like that? I generally don't insult people and I'm not going to personally attack you, so why act like I'm bullying you? I don't like it when people do that.

I wasn't aware that you were bullying me; it's just that I tend to go into self-flagellation mode when I've been proven to be seriously in the wrong. My apologies, you were not at fault in this case.

I don't know why you personally browse the forums, but if you're here to get anything out of it, then stop acting like you're feeling sorry for yourself, concede your points in a quick, maybe even polite, fashion and actually think about what people are saying.

I have been trying to concede my points quickly and politely so I can bug out of this mess that grew out of my post. Unfortunately, I just seem to keep digging myself deeper.

I CONCEDE MY POINTS. I HAVE NO EVIDENCE BEHIND THEM, SAVE MY OWN LIMITED OBSERVATIONS, AND I CANNOT ARGUE FOR THEM ANY LONGER.

[Darth Wong]

Is there some particular reason why you can't bring yourself to stop calling them "facts" and "observations"? They are not facts and observations, and you will not hear the end of this until you stop falsely calling them that.

[darthbob88]

Is there some particular reason why you can't bring yourself to stop calling them "facts" and "observations"? They are not facts and observations, and you will not hear the end of this until you stop falsely calling them that.

Irony and a misguided morality. Please, don't ask further questions about this. However, yes, those are not any sort of facts or observations I'm basing my comment on.

[R. U. Serious]

and that what gave me trouble is the disproportionate influence of one individual with a lawyer when compared to the remainder of society.

It's not the power of a single person, or a lawyer or an NGO. It's the power of the law. Do you understand how most democratic systems and/or legal systems work? Or at least the one in the US? It is impossible to simply come up with whatever you want and push it through in the manner you describe. Those cases where one person and his lawyer "change" things, is by pointing out that already existing, higher principles (like, you know, something from the constitution or from federal laws) call for things to be handled differently then they are. For example when showing the unconstitutionality of certain laws.

So, are you, in effect saying that popularity should trump justice or the law?

[darthbob88]

and that what gave me trouble is the disproportionate influence of one individual with a lawyer when compared to the remainder of society.

It's not the power of a single person, or a lawyer or an NGO. It's the power of the law. Do you understand how most democratic systems and/or legal systems work? Or at least the one in the US? It is impossible to simply come up with whatever you want and push it through in the manner you describe. Those cases where one person and his lawyer "change" things, is by pointing out that already existing, higher principles (like, you know, something from the constitution or from federal laws) call for things to be handled differently then they are. For example when showing the unconstitutionality of certain laws.

So, are you, in effect saying that popularity should trump justice or the law?

Given that I have attempted to drop this point, repeatedly, all I have to say on the subject is, How 'bout them Mariners?

No, I don't want popularity to overrule law; what I want is an end to people using the law to their own advantage, rather than using the law to help people.

[Keevan_Colton]

That's rather retarded, after all it would help those using it...or do you mean you just dont want it used to help those it's not helping currently?

[General Zod]

No, I don't want popularity to overrule law; what I want is an end to people using the law to their own advantage, rather than using the law to help people.

So somehow by your logic atheists attempting to remove the words "under god" from things like the pledge and our currency in order to promote a separation of church and state is somehow not helping people?

[darthbob88]

That's rather retarded, after all it would help those using it...or do you mean you just dont want it used to help those it's not helping currently?

I say again, How 'bout them Mariners. I want to see the law help those people whom it is not helping now, rather than people who'd use it to their own advantage and somebody else's disadvantage. Basically, law applied with a judicious dose of common sense.

[SirNitram]

That's rather retarded, after all it would help those using it...or do you mean you just dont want it used to help those it's not helping currently?

I say again, How 'bout them Mariners. I want to see the law help those people whom it is not helping now, rather than people who'd use it to their own advantage and somebody else's disadvantage. Basically, law applied with a judicious dose of common sense.

How does restoring the Pledge, for example, to it's original form 'Disadvantage' anyone, you dishonest, dodging little fucktard?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

No, I don't want popularity to overrule law; what I want is an end to people using the law to their own advantage, rather than using the law to help people.

What typical anti-civil rights apologist bullshit. It runs along the lines of minorities oppressing the majority; I am so sick of this fucking right-wing persecution complex.

[darthbob88]

That's rather retarded, after all it would help those using it...or do you mean you just dont want it used to help those it's not helping currently?

I say again, How 'bout them Mariners. I want to see the law help those people whom it is not helping now, rather than people who'd use it to their own advantage and somebody else's disadvantage. Basically, law applied with a judicious dose of common sense.

How does restoring the Pledge, for example, to it's original form 'Disadvantage' anyone, you dishonest, dodging little fucktard?

To the best of my knowledge, it will cause conservatives to protest the removal of that phrase, but, so far as their constitutional rights go, nobody will be harmed. I used the pledge as an example of one individual exerting rights over the majority; I don't really care if anybody does change it or doesn't change it. And please, look to the top of this thread. I conceded and do concede that this point of mine is based upon no fact, no observation, save my own ignorance, and that I was incorrect in holding it to so true.

[darthbob88]

No, I don't want popularity to overrule law; what I want is an end to people using the law to their own advantage, rather than using the law to help people.

What typical anti-civil rights apologist bullshit. It runs along the lines of minorities oppressing the majority; I am so sick of this fucking right-wing persecution complex.

Name for me the last time I expressly stated I was opposed to civil-rights in this thread? The last time I complained of minorities oppressing the majorities in this thread? What I am uncomfortable with is the ability of one individual to change major laws, be it justly or unjustly, and the use of laws to provide one group with an advantage over the other. The first is, to the best of my knowledge, permitted by the Constitution, and indubitably would have been encouraged by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. I still don't like it, but I won't waste time trying to change it.

And I ask you as well, look at the top of this page. I concede that my point is logically indefensible, based upon no fact better than an acid trip, and that I produced it out of ignorance. Now, can we please drop it and get back to the purpose of this thread? It has been beaten over my head that my position was a bad one and that I could not defend it, so I choose to concede it and drop it.

[General Zod]

Name for me the last time I expressly stated I was opposed to civil-rights in this thread? The last time I complained of minorities oppressing the majorities in this thread? What I am uncomfortable with is the ability of one individual to change major laws, be it justly or unjustly, and the use of laws to provide one group with an advantage over the other. The first is, to the best of my knowledge, permitted by the Constitution, and indubitably would have been encouraged by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. I still don't like it, but I won't waste time trying to change it.

One man cannot, in theory and usually in practice change any major laws. Proposed bills can be vetoed, but until they are officially voted into place, they are not laws. So your fears are baseless and completely misinformed.

[darthbob88]

Name for me the last time I expressly stated I was opposed to civil-rights in this thread? The last time I complained of minorities oppressing the majorities in this thread? What I am uncomfortable with is the ability of one individual to change major laws, be it justly or unjustly, and the use of laws to provide one group with an advantage over the other. The first is, to the best of my knowledge, permitted by the Constitution, and indubitably would have been encouraged by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. I still don't like it, but I won't waste time trying to change it.

One man cannot, in theory and usually in practice change any major laws. Proposed bills can be vetoed, but until they are officially voted into place, they are not laws. So your fears are baseless and completely misinformed.

Uh, yeah, I'm starting to get that feeling. Won't make them go away, but I'm starting to feel that those fears have no reason to be.

[SirNitram]

To the best of my knowledge, it will cause conservatives to protest the removal of that phrase, but, so far as their constitutional rights go, nobody will be harmed. I used the pledge as an example of one individual exerting rights over the majority; I don't really care if anybody does change it or doesn't change it. And please, look to the top of this thread. I conceded and do concede that this point of mine is based upon no fact, no observation, save my own ignorance, and that I was incorrect in holding it to so true.

What right does the majority have to keep a change made expressly for the McCarthy Era Fearmongering crowd? What harm, in any sense, comes from the addition the Knights Of Columbus used fear and hate to add, being excised?

You obviously think you're being reasonable, but you're being a fucking retard.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What typical anti-civil rights apologist bullshit. It runs along the lines of minorities oppressing the majority; I am so sick of this fucking right-wing persecution complex.

Name for me the last time I expressly stated I was opposed to civil-rights in this thread? The last time I complained of minorities oppressing the majorities in this thread? What I am uncomfortable with is the ability of one individual to change major laws, be it justly or unjustly, and the use of laws to provide one group with an advantage over the other. The first is, to the best of my knowledge, permitted by the Constitution, and indubitably would have been encouraged by the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. I still don't like it, but I won't waste time trying to change it.

Don't take me for fool, you asshole. It's not what you explicitly said but what you blatantly implied. Your invocation of the atheist seeking to remove "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance as an example of your argument is precisely the shit I'm talking. Despite being an example of a minority (an atheist) seeking to justifiably remove an unconstitutional practice (establishment clause violation), you still framed it as a minority oppressing the majority issue. Your fears are either based on an santi-civil rights apologist position or utter ignorance of the legal system in the United States or both.

[darthbob88]

What right does the majority have to keep a change made expressly for the McCarthy Era Fearmongering crowd? What harm, in any sense, comes from the addition the Knights Of Columbus used fear and hate to add, being excised?

You obviously think you're being reasonable, but you're being a fucking retard.

To the best of my knowledge, no harm would come. No rights would be trampled, no liberties denied, and the worst possibility I can think of is a riot in protest.

I'm trying to be reasonable, yes, but it's getting to be a bit difficult since I've conceded and dropped this point two or three times already, and I've already tried to say that changing the pledge in any way was only an example for my argument. I could easily be retarded here, but you seem to refuse to hear me concede the point.

[darthbob88]

Don't take me for fool, you asshole. It's not what you explicitly said but what you blatantly implied. Your invocation of the atheist seeking to remove "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance as an example of your argument is precisely the shit I'm talking. Despite being an example of a minority (an atheist) seeking to justifiably remove an unconstitutional practice (establishment clause violation), you still framed it as a minority oppressing the majority issue. Your fears are either based on an santi-civil rights apologist position or utter ignorance of the legal system in the United States or both.

Ye gotta love this. I made a comment about the power of one individual to change government significantly, and all the flak I'm catching is because I chose to use the atheist and the Pledge as one of my examples, completely ignoring the fact that it was followed by a fundie campaigning for school prayer. If it'll make you feel better, change the atheist to a Discordian and have him campaign for "one nation under Eris". Or just remove that example entirely. Regardless, what annoys me and the basis of the argument is the fact that a single individual has so much power. Not atheists, not civil rights, the fact that a single individual can change things so much, for better or for worse.

[Patrick Degan]

Don't take me for fool, you asshole. It's not what you explicitly said but what you blatantly implied. Your invocation of the atheist seeking to remove "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance as an example of your argument is precisely the shit I'm talking. Despite being an example of a minority (an atheist) seeking to justifiably remove an unconstitutional practice (establishment clause violation), you still framed it as a minority oppressing the majority issue. Your fears are either based on an santi-civil rights apologist position or utter ignorance of the legal system in the United States or both.

Ye gotta love this. I made a comment about the power of one individual to change government significantly, and all the flak I'm catching is because I chose to use the atheist and the Pledge as one of my examples, completely ignoring the fact that it was followed by a fundie campaigning for school prayer. If it'll make you feel better, change the atheist to a Discordian and have him campaign for "one nation under Eris". Or just remove that example entirely. Regardless, what annoys me and the basis of the argument is the fact that a single individual has so much power. Not atheists, not civil rights, the fact that a single individual can change things so much, for better or for worse.

You do seem to be unable to avoid stepping in it, don't you?

BTW, your naming of the two examples of "atheist campaigning to remove "under God" from the Pledge" and "Fundie campaigning for school prayer" as alike to one another is what is known as a Golden Mean Fallacy. The two situations are not alike in object. Nor do they provide evidence for any argument of the alleged power of a single individual to change the laws. It does not nor has it ever worked that way under our system of law and government and you seem to be operating under a gross misunderstanding.

[darthbob88]

You do seem to be unable to avoid stepping in it, don't you?

Chief, I'm almost breathing the stuff, I'm in it so deep, and it just gets deeper every time I open my mouth. Unfortunately, it's either that or endure misrepresentation and savaging by Nitram and Pint0.

BTW, your naming of the two examples of "atheist campaigning to remove "under God" from the Pledge" and "Fundie campaigning for school prayer" as alike to one another is what is known as a Golden Mean Fallacy. The two situations are not alike in object. Nor do they provide evidence for any argument of the alleged power of a single individual to change the laws. It does not nor has it ever worked that way under our system of law and government and you seem to be operating under a gross misunderstanding.

Well, crud; those two being interchangeable was the foundation of my argument. No big deal, as I've already tried to concede and drop it as an issue.

I am aware that my fear and argument was based on a misconception. In fact, I think General Zod was the last person to say that I was operating on an erroneous assumption there.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Ye gotta love this. I made a comment about the power of one individual to change government significantly, and all the flak I'm catching is because I chose to use the atheist and the Pledge as one of my examples, completely ignoring the fact that it was followed by a fundie campaigning for school prayer. If it'll make you feel better, change the atheist to a Discordian and have him campaign for "one nation under Eris". Or just remove that example entirely. Regardless, what annoys me and the basis of the argument is the fact that a single individual has so much power. Not atheists, not civil rights, the fact that a single individual can change things so much, for better or for worse.

What a blithering idiot. "I concede that my argument that one person is too powerful is total shit! ... but it still annoys me that one person has too much power." Why the fuck are you conceding if you're still going to drop in that claim now and then?

Oh btw, a single distinct person is theoretically a minority. The fact that a single person can fight for themselves means any minority of any size has a chance of equality and justice. In case you haven't noticed, atheists are one of the smallest perceived minorities in America and their small collective power is only dwarfed by the religious juggernaught. Hence, the ability to fight back provides hope for atheists and other tiny minorities that they can be treated as normal citizens one day. So you can take your dumbshit argument about how individuals have too much legal power and shove it up your ass because as it stands, you concession is nothing but a way to ass-kiss your way out of a debate.

[darthbob88]

What a blithering idiot. "I concede that my argument that one person is too powerful is total shit! ... but it still annoys me that one person has too much power." Why the fuck are you conceding if you're still going to drop in that claim now and then?

Because I won't. That claim is, as I have noted, backed by nothing more substantial than my own personal opinion, and therefore has no place in a debate thread like this.

Oh btw, a single distinct person is theoretically a minority. The fact that a single person can fight for themselves means any minority of any size has a chance of equality and justice.

So, as a one man minority, I can campaign for my constitutional rights? I can campaign for recognition and assistance from Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employment, and thus gain significant advantage over somebody else? Cause, that's what I was objecting to, among other things.

In case you haven't noticed, atheists are one of the smallest perceived minorities in America and their small collective power is only dwarfed by the religious juggernaught. Hence, the ability to fight back provides hope for atheists and other tiny minorities that they can be treated as normal citizens one day. So you can take your dumbshit argument about how individuals have too much legal power and shove it up your ass because as it stands, you concession is nothing but a way to ass-kiss your way out of a debate.

I was using it as a way to get out of a losing argument intact. My argument was shot to hell, I had been convinced that I was speaking out of pure ignorance, and that my argument was based upon an erroneous assumption. Why shouldn't I concede the point and admit I was incorrect?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What a blithering idiot. "I concede that my argument that one person is too powerful is total shit! ... but it still annoys me that one person has too much power." Why the fuck are you conceding if you're still going to drop in that claim now and then?

Because I won't. That claim is, as I have noted, backed by nothing more substantial than my own personal opinion, and therefore has no place in a debate thread like this.

In case I didn't make myself clear before, I'll ask again: If you conceded, then why are you still dropping in your claim here and there instead of shutting the fuck up?

So, as a one man minority, I can campaign for my constitutional rights? I can campaign for recognition and assistance from Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Employment, and thus gain significant advantage over somebody else? Cause, that's what I was objecting to, among other things.

An objection which has been obliterated by others.

I was using it as a way to get out of a losing argument intact. My argument was shot to hell, I had been convinced that I was speaking out of pure ignorance, and that my argument was based upon an erroneous assumption. Why shouldn't I concede the point and admit I was incorrect?

Maybe you should get this into your thick skull: The only reason why no one is taking your concession seriously is because you don't shut the fuck up.

[darthbob88]

What a blithering idiot. "I concede that my argument that one person is too powerful is total shit! ... but it still annoys me that one person has too much power." Why the fuck are you conceding if you're still going to drop in that claim now and then?

Because I won't. That claim is, as I have noted, backed by nothing more substantial than my own personal opinion, and therefore has no place in a debate thread like this.

In case I didn't make myself clear before, I'll ask again: If you conceded, then why are you still dropping in your claim here and there instead of shutting the fuck up?

Because you are still asking me for an answer. If you'll STFU about it, I'll gladly do the same.