Really? There's a difference?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

Well that was whiny and meaningless... again, you, in your intellectual laziness and cowardice, speak to the source, instead of the ideas. Good for you, son.

Nice attempt to pat yourself on the back and hoist yourself up on your own pedestal even though you remain clueless to the history between Cnut and myself.
For your information I tried the discussion route to no avail and realized all he wanted to do was disparage and demean. Maybe if you'd been around back then you wouldn't be stuffing your feet in your mouth so eagerly.
Now, again, mind your own business and shovel your shit at someone else. Have a nice life.

See ya later! When I need someone to speak to the character of a source instead of to the ideas at hand, I'll be sure to look you up.

 

[Czernobog]

What a sissy copout... And you might want to check your dictionary. I think it's broken. Free exchange of ideas is not extremism. Inviting scrutiny and criticism of ideas is not extremism. It's precisely the opposite. The "extremist" is someone like you who refuses to discuss ideas and rejects all new information out of hand.

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Like I said, contrary to what you have claimed, you don't know what extremism is. Further you don't know the difference between opposing a belief, and calling for that belief to be criminalised. Your ignorance is noted.

 

[Flopper]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates ***** and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your ******* religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!


Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

The problem is, a "moderate view" by what standard? Is advocating for criminalising homosexuality "moderate"? Sure it is...in comparison to the religion that just throws them off of rooftops. You see, you make this defence of "moderate views", with no reference point of what is moderate. When we speak of "moderates" vs "Extremists", that leaves a whole lot of room for relatively extreme views to be tolerated, because, at least, they aren't blowing shit up, and making public spectacles of themselves.

Extremists that are acting on their beliefs do not listen to the opposition. The only way to get to them is thru those those that hold less extreme beliefs, that is those that hold views of both sides. These are the people that can strike deals, get hostages released, and change the hearts and minds of all but the most extreme.

 

[Czernobog]

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the **** are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

Nothing I have said is "hateful". You presume that opposition is from hate. It's not. Now, demeaning? Maybe. I'll admit have have been snarky on occasion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Extremists that are acting on their beliefs do not listen to the opposition.

While that may be factually correct, i've always viewed this sort of statement as an intellectual copout. You do understand that they were not born "extreme", right? And that all humans eventually die and are replaced by new humans... right? So combating extremism doesn't have to about trying to have rational debate with existing extremists, and instead can be about changing the overall culture (which includes the moderates) that new people are born into. this is done by replacing bad ideas with better ideas.

And this would include the public excoriation of extremists and extremism. While those being flogged may not change, the public flogging still sends a message to others.

 

[Ringel05]

It would seem I know the definition of extremism and all it's levels as well as you. But it would also seem that I made a mistake in where I thought I was responding to Czernobog, the Westboroan of Humanism and not you. In that you have my apologies.

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Like I said, contrary to what you have claimed, you don't know what extremism is. Further you don't know the difference between opposing a belief, and calling for that belief to be criminalised. Your ignorance is noted.

Yet your every post belies that claim.

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates ***** and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your ******* religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!


Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

All fine points, but the word "moderate" is very relative. See: moderate Muslims in Pakistan. Sure, they shy away from some of the more vile, fundamental behaviors. But their lack of true, strong opposition to these behaviors actually helps the extremists maintain a foothold.

I agree with that but I see the need for moderates on both sides. If there were no moderates on either side, there would be total war and destruction. You need moderates on both sides as they are only ones that can moderate the views of those that are more extreme.

Both sides of what?

 

[Czernobog]

I hear this a lot. "Don't judge the moderates by the actions of the extremists," Couple of problems with this.

First, from whence do you think the extremists rise? You think they just "spring forth" from out of the ground, with no basis? No. They base their ideals on the very same written religious codes as the moderates. And with good reason. The moderates insist that the extremists are "misinterpreting" the texts of their given religion. Who says? If scripture is interpretable, then by what authority do moderates insist that their interpretation is any more accurate, or correct than the extremists?

Second, there is the "When good men do nothing" bit. I constantly hear moderates ***** and whine, "Don't just us by what the extremists do!!!" However, we rarely see those moderates standing up to the extremists directly, telling them to knock their shit off, and opposing them. Look, this is your ******* religion, not mine! You don't want your religion to be tainted by extremism? Then stand up to the extremists, and police your own!!!


Finally, there is this. The moderates aren't all that much better. In Islam, is it the "extremists" who are trying women, and having them publicly beaten for *adultery*? No. That would be the moderates. Is it the "extremists" who are burning "infidels" at the stake? No. That would be the "moderates". Is it the "extremists" who are throwing homosexuals off roofs? No. That would be the "moderates". And, don't think Christianity is any better. The only reason Christians are not openly doing these things, is because Christianity now exists mostly in countries that, long ago, threw off the shackles of Christian theocracy in favour of secular governments, so Christianity doesn't have the legislative freedom to so openly act on its beliefs any more. Instead, these "moderate" Christians picket abortion centres, slut shaming women for making personal choices. They bully, and harass children who are different (gay, or pagan) to point of suicide. They send *their own children* to torture camps under the guise of "gender realignment therapy". They attempt to pass laws to enshrine their religion in governments.

So, yeah. Don't tell me that the "moderates" should not be judged by the same standards as the religious extremists. I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference.

Hogwash. Having a moderate view is not a step toward becoming an extremist. The vast majority of people with moderate views remain so throughout their lives.

Some people have an extreme personality; that is, they are either all in or all out. When such a person become involve with an extremist group, there is a high probably that they will develop extremist views and some will go on to turn those views in actions.

A world without moderates would leave no one in the middle to moderate the views of the two extremes. The end result would be a world of chaos and destruction.

The problem is, a "moderate view" by what standard? Is advocating for criminalising homosexuality "moderate"? Sure it is...in comparison to the religion that just throws them off of rooftops. You see, you make this defence of "moderate views", with no reference point of what is moderate. When we speak of "moderates" vs "Extremists", that leaves a whole lot of room for relatively extreme views to be tolerated, because, at least, they aren't blowing shit up, and making public spectacles of themselves.

Extremists that are acting on their beliefs do not listen to the opposition. The only way to get to them is thru those those that hold less extreme beliefs, that is those that hold views of both sides. These are the people that can strike deals, get hostages released, and change the hearts and minds of all but the most extreme.

What beliefs held by Westboro do you believe are extreme, precisely? Actually, don't answer that. Answer this question, first. Would you consider yourself a Christian?

 

[Ringel05]

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the **** are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

Nothing I have said is "hateful". You presume that opposition is from hate. It's not. Now, demeaning? Maybe. I'll admit have have been snarky on occasion.

Demeaning is basically the same as hateful, why do you think I give you so much crap? I would strongly suspect it's because you're simply being an ass most of the time. Now there's a huge clue for ya......

 

[Czernobog]

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion. And how the hell do you propose to assume you know what my beliefs are? Is that the typical Humanist response?

You've never "asked" my intent. You have always dictated your perseption about my intent. "You want to silence Christians in the public square", blah, blah, blah. I have repeatedly corrected you, and you just go right on assigning to me whatever motivation you think would be easier to argue against than the actual content of my posts. Hey, if its easier for you to attack me, feel froggy. Doesn't bother me in the least, but please don't pretend that your responses are the least bit rational.

 

[Flopper]

Roy Moore...moderate or extremist?:

Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal' - CNNPolitics

"Moderate!"

Signed,

Every "Moderate" Christian on the planet 200 years ago.
....................

Point being, not only is "moderate" relative, it's meaning in any context CAN be influenced by introduction of newer, better ideas. In this case, western Christians were indfluenced by the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment. Such an effort should not be disparaged or cast as something other than what it is.

You're being too generous. That man is set to win the Alabama Congressional race for his district!!! So, unless we are prepared to say that his entire congressional district is populated by extremists, then it must be acknowledged that his views are not "too extreme" to be acceptable by "moderate" Christians.

Moore is probability going to win and his extreme beliefs are not relevant. He is going to win for two reasons. First, his supporters are going to show up at the polls in a special election that rarely attracts many voters. Secondly, these voters are going to vote for him because he is not a democrat. They don't give a shit how many teenagers he diddled with. He could have raped them in front the court house during lunch hour and he would still get their vote. It's sad that American politics has reached this level.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Roy Moore...moderate or extremist?:

Roy Moore in 2005: 'Homosexual conduct should be illegal' - CNNPolitics

"Moderate!"

Signed,

Every "Moderate" Christian on the planet 200 years ago.
....................

Point being, not only is "moderate" relative, it's meaning in any context CAN be influenced by introduction of newer, better ideas. In this case, western Christians were indfluenced by the secular ideas of classical liberalism and scientific enlightenment. Such an effort should not be disparaged or cast as something other than what it is.

You're being too generous. That man is set to win the Alabama Congressional race for his district!!! So, unless we are prepared to say that his entire congressional district is populated by extremists, then it must be acknowledged that his views are not "too extreme" to be acceptable by "moderate" Christians.

Moore is probability going to win and his extreme beliefs are not relevant. He is going to win for two reasons. First, his supporters are going to show up at the polls in a special election that rarely attracts many voters. Secondly, these voters are going to vote for him because he is not a democrat. They don't give a shit how many teenagers he diddled with. He could have raped them in front the court house during lunch hour and he would still get their vote. It's sad that American politics has reached this level.

You stop short of (and even misrepresent) the truth. It's not that he's Republican. It is precisely because of his extreme views on abortion and homosexuality that he both won the primary and will win the election.

 

[Ringel05]

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion. And how the hell do you propose to assume you know what my beliefs are? Is that the typical Humanist response?

You've never "asked" my intent. You have always dictated your perseption about my intent. "You want to silence Christians in the public square", blah, blah, blah. I have repeatedly corrected you, and you just go right on assigning to me whatever motivation you think would be easier to argue against than the actual content of my posts. Hey, if its easier for you to attack me, feel froggy. Doesn't bother me in the least, but please don't pretend that your responses are the least bit rational.

Bull shit. But obviously you have convinced yourself that's true.

 

[Czernobog]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Thing is he doesn't "question" my intent, which shouldn't matter, but rather he makes proclamations about what my intent is. And it still shouldn't matter. I could be a frothing anti-religious Christian-hating nutcake, and if my argument is irrational, or illogical, he should be able to defend against it without ever commenting on my "intent". At least, that's how I have always understood the rules of rational debate: either an argument is rational, and stands, or it is irrational, and rational arguments against it can be made.

But, hey. That's just me. WhaddoIkno?

 

[Czernobog]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

Well that was whiny and meaningless... again, you, in your intellectual laziness and cowardice, speak to the source, instead of the ideas. Good for you, son.

Nice attempt to pat yourself on the back and hoist yourself up on your own pedestal even though you remain clueless to the history between Cnut and myself.
For your information I tried the discussion route to no avail and realized all he wanted to do was disparage and demean. Maybe if you'd been around back then you wouldn't be stuffing your feet in your mouth so eagerly.

Translation, "I tried to overcome his arguments with reason, and failed, so I just resorted to attacking him,"

 

[Ringel05]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Thing is he doesn't "question" my intent, which shouldn't matter, but rather he makes proclamations about what my intent is. And it still shouldn't matter. I could be a frothing anti-religious Christian-hating nutcake, and if my argument is irrational, or illogical, he should be able to defend against it without ever commenting on my "intent". At least, that's how I have always understood the rules of rational debate: either an argument is rational, and stands, or it is irrational, and rational arguments against it can be made.

But, hey. That's just me. WhaddoIkno?

When one interlaces their diatribe with derision and ridicule then the intent is clear.

 

[Ringel05]

Every time in the past I questioned Czernobog's intent the response was pretty much always the accusation that I'm a Christian radical, that's the response of a fanatic not an open minded person that wants open discussion.

Well, seeing that you questioned his intent instead of meeting his arguments with arguments of your own, i would say his comments about you were spot on, at the time.

Of course you would, that much you've made quite plain....... And that's not a compliment.

Well that was whiny and meaningless... again, you, in your intellectual laziness and cowardice, speak to the source, instead of the ideas. Good for you, son.

Nice attempt to pat yourself on the back and hoist yourself up on your own pedestal even though you remain clueless to the history between Cnut and myself.
For your information I tried the discussion route to no avail and realized all he wanted to do was disparage and demean. Maybe if you'd been around back then you wouldn't be stuffing your feet in your mouth so eagerly.

Translation, "I tried to overcome his arguments with reason, and failed, so I just resorted to attacking him,"

Wow are you self delusional!!!!!

 

[Czernobog]

That's adorable. Ya know, I don't think I have called for Christians to be stones, imprisoned, or decreed that they are "going to Hell". If you think that speaking out is synonymous with extremism, then you are wrong. You don't know the definition of extremism.

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Like I said, contrary to what you have claimed, you don't know what extremism is. Further you don't know the difference between opposing a belief, and calling for that belief to be criminalised. Your ignorance is noted.

Yet your every post belies that claim.

Demonstrate that. Address my post. Demonstrate how it is inaccurate, or incorrect. We'll wait...

 

[Ringel05]

No but you have for all intent and purposes called for them to be de facto silenced in the "public square". You've made humanist "gone to hell" claims for Christians espousing their beliefs. Stand up, be a man, accept that you are an extremist of sorts and wear the badge proudly!!

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Like I said, contrary to what you have claimed, you don't know what extremism is. Further you don't know the difference between opposing a belief, and calling for that belief to be criminalised. Your ignorance is noted.

Yet your every post belies that claim.

Demonstrate that. Address my post. Demonstrate how it is inaccurate, or incorrect. We'll wait...

Hold your breath, I love watching some people turn blue then purple. I stopped trying to have a discussion with you a long time ago, it wasn't worth the aggravation. Besides, it's more fun to simply make fun of extremists regardless of what their position/beliefs are.

 

[Czernobog]

I have not. never once have I said they should be silenced. I have only maintained, and continue to maintain that Christianity should not be allowed to use government resources to proselytise, and should not be allowed to codify their r3eligious code of conduct in our secular laws. As to your "gone to hell" bullshit; that's just that. Bullshit. I have never made any such claims. Making such a claim would be absurd as I don't believe in Hell. Why would I condemn Christians to somewhere I don't believe exists. I might just as well condemn them to Neverland. That place is just about as real.

Correct, you have not directly said it but for all intent and purposes you've made it plain that's what you mean in your constant, strident (and ignorant) railing against Christians. You generalize and stereotype. As for my "gone to Hell" quip obviously you're too uneducated to recognize an allegory when you see one. Which laws currently in force are religious codifications built in to the secular? Are you being forced to go to church every Sunday? Are you required to pray towards Mecca so many times a day?
I don't care what you believe, it's a free country, something you've either never learned or simply chose to forget.

Are you being forced to abandon your beliefs? No? Then maybe you should take your own advice

What the **** are you rambling on about? Czernobog is similar to the Westboroans in that he's hateful are demeaning, always has been. I just give him what he gives to everyone who disagrees with him. Wake up and smell the horseshit you're shoveling.

Nothing I have said is "hateful". You presume that opposition is from hate. It's not. Now, demeaning? Maybe. I'll admit have have been snarky on occasion.

Demeaning is basically the same as hateful, why do you think I give you so much crap? I would strongly suspect it's because you're simply being an ass most of the time. Now there's a huge clue for ya......

No it's not. English really isn't your strong suit, it is. Demeaning is condescending, mocking. You can mock without hatred. For example, I'm mocking you. I don't hate you. I just find you unoriginal, and mildly amusing.