^ Oh ffs!
lmao
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Your eloquence is simply amazing.
Thanks Thomas! That chip on your shoulder is amazing too.
Anyway.. god.. load of shite isn't it?
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
Posted: 09 Apr 13, 20:47The Real Wizard wrote:
Seriously GF - you have become very embittered as of late. You used to be a wonderful voice of reason at this place. But these past few months... All BS stripped away, I sincerely hope you're doing alright.
Posted: 03 Apr 13, 09:51thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
GratefulFan... I have never seen you act in a way such as you have these last few pages, which I can only describe as fanatical and deeply worrying.
Posted: 02 Apr 13, 07:43magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
...the hostility (and name-calling) has been present for many pages.
Posted: 13 Jan 13, 18:19GratefulFan wrote:
Today, I managed to give myself a great big concussion.
Well played :-)
GratefulFan wrote:
You and bigot #2 seriously make me sick down to my toes and you can be assured that every drop of anger and disgust comes from that place and nowhere else.
If forum posts can upset you that deeply, may I suggest some form of therapy, or maybe yoga ?
Seriously - what are TQ and I doing to make the world such a horrible place?
I'd understand if an NRA forum made you feel sick, but really, we're that bad?
GratefulFan wrote:
It's not inherently evil or suspicious that a large religious organization has assets and investments and owns businesses.
It'd better not be suspicious since they aren't taxed.
There is nothing benevolent about this action. They are bailing out the country because it is good for business, which is what churches ultimately are.
And arguably the most successful business of all. They've lasted for 1700 years on the basis of a story of a guy being crucified and coming back to life on the third day - a story that's been told at least 15 times before in traditions prior to theirs (knowledge of which is actively suppressed to this day), a fact which I suspect at least 95 percent of its customers ("adherents" is a somewhat misleading term) aren't aware of.
Take it from here, Mr. Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ZcA4uGgRI
FYI, these are not "absurd, insulting and unsupported generalizations." They are undeniable fact.
Carry on..
GF -
MHO ...
The "Unholy Trinity" (GH, TQ & FM) are not worthy of your attention. Trying to rationally discuss a moderate opinion on QZ is like pissing in the wind. Please do yourself a favor and ignore them. A fight against willful ignorance is futile.
MHO ...
The "Unholy Trinity" (GH, TQ & FM) are not worthy of your attention. Trying to rationally discuss a moderate opinion on QZ is like pissing in the wind. Please do yourself a favor and ignore them. A fight against willful ignorance is futile.
"zero, I mean ZERO boundaries"
Er ... when did I ever claim to have them? First of all, there are actually a couple of things I haven't joked about here (I'd be a fool if I named either of them), but the real issue here is that I don't actually lay claim to any higher standards or boundaries in that regard. But you seem to, and I think it's actually laughable that you can parade such a double standard in broad daylight like that.
The point I was making is that I haven't got anything to live up to - it's just hilarious that for all of your folderol in this thread, you'd still resort to such base tactics. It puts the rest of your posts into a pretty clear context, I'll say that much.
And my issue isn't even whether or not using Special Olympics as some kind of hyperbole is offensive or not. I'm not offended. For one thing it's always struck me as a bit bizarre to use a bunch of physically impaired athletes as an example of something pointless, frivolous, below-par or pathetic - considering a lot of them are able to achieve more in their chosen field than a lot of the perfectly able people who use the phrase in the first place!
It's not even offensiveness I'm talking about here, I want to make that clear - it's more the laziness inherent in using the term, and I suppose the bold inaccuracy of it.
Er ... when did I ever claim to have them? First of all, there are actually a couple of things I haven't joked about here (I'd be a fool if I named either of them), but the real issue here is that I don't actually lay claim to any higher standards or boundaries in that regard. But you seem to, and I think it's actually laughable that you can parade such a double standard in broad daylight like that.
The point I was making is that I haven't got anything to live up to - it's just hilarious that for all of your folderol in this thread, you'd still resort to such base tactics. It puts the rest of your posts into a pretty clear context, I'll say that much.
And my issue isn't even whether or not using Special Olympics as some kind of hyperbole is offensive or not. I'm not offended. For one thing it's always struck me as a bit bizarre to use a bunch of physically impaired athletes as an example of something pointless, frivolous, below-par or pathetic - considering a lot of them are able to achieve more in their chosen field than a lot of the perfectly able people who use the phrase in the first place!
It's not even offensiveness I'm talking about here, I want to make that clear - it's more the laziness inherent in using the term, and I suppose the bold inaccuracy of it.
"pissing in the wind"
The wind doesn't always blow in the same direction.
I mean truly, I want to sit down and make some sense of this train wreck of a thread, but it would involve me having to sit down and actually read some of this crap again. All I can get is a strong whiff of some people trying to blame the ills of humanity on religion, and some other people saying 'no way, it's done all of these great things' - and an odd unwillingness to consider a mesh of the two.
I've said on before QZ and I'll say it again - if it wasn't religion being used to further an agenda, it'd be something else (and frequently is). It's a little unfortunate that matters of the spiritual or metaphysical get dragged into (often legitimate) criticisms of the very flawed human institutions that form 'organised' religion. Actually it's very unfortunate, and it's the first place that you see the humanity seeped out of the discussion, which is why I've always loved Carl Sagan and loathed Richard Dawkins. Sagan never gave anyone an undue hard time for their beliefs - he was just unflinchingly unrealistic about how those beliefs came about, the very human tendencies that lead us towards them, and the possibilities that come with an infinite universe.
Dawkins is, on the other hand, a hateful little gnome and a shameless showpony. I will always maintain that it's possible to be both scientific and a decent human being, but he's never been very good at it.
I don't really know if I've made it obvious enough as yet, but inasmuch as I don't buy GratefulFan's pitch on this topic, neither would I want to align myself wholly with TQ's. And it's not even anything personal, strictly speaking - it's just that most stances on this topic usually trigger off my bullshit meter. It owes something to what I mentioned earlier about how the contemplation of 'whatever there is' usually gets heckled when the people that we really ought to be going after are the ones in fancy cloaks - clergy and lawmen alike. If I can get laughed at for wearing a Superman shirt in public (true story) then I think it's legitimate to go after grown men taking part in well compensated fancy dress. With a straight face.
And by association, this is always perceived as an attack on a willingness to acknowledge the possibility of there being 'more' to life. It ain't. This is the Church - it's got nothing to do with God.
The wind doesn't always blow in the same direction.
I mean truly, I want to sit down and make some sense of this train wreck of a thread, but it would involve me having to sit down and actually read some of this crap again. All I can get is a strong whiff of some people trying to blame the ills of humanity on religion, and some other people saying 'no way, it's done all of these great things' - and an odd unwillingness to consider a mesh of the two.
I've said on before QZ and I'll say it again - if it wasn't religion being used to further an agenda, it'd be something else (and frequently is). It's a little unfortunate that matters of the spiritual or metaphysical get dragged into (often legitimate) criticisms of the very flawed human institutions that form 'organised' religion. Actually it's very unfortunate, and it's the first place that you see the humanity seeped out of the discussion, which is why I've always loved Carl Sagan and loathed Richard Dawkins. Sagan never gave anyone an undue hard time for their beliefs - he was just unflinchingly unrealistic about how those beliefs came about, the very human tendencies that lead us towards them, and the possibilities that come with an infinite universe.
Dawkins is, on the other hand, a hateful little gnome and a shameless showpony. I will always maintain that it's possible to be both scientific and a decent human being, but he's never been very good at it.
I don't really know if I've made it obvious enough as yet, but inasmuch as I don't buy GratefulFan's pitch on this topic, neither would I want to align myself wholly with TQ's. And it's not even anything personal, strictly speaking - it's just that most stances on this topic usually trigger off my bullshit meter. It owes something to what I mentioned earlier about how the contemplation of 'whatever there is' usually gets heckled when the people that we really ought to be going after are the ones in fancy cloaks - clergy and lawmen alike. If I can get laughed at for wearing a Superman shirt in public (true story) then I think it's legitimate to go after grown men taking part in well compensated fancy dress. With a straight face.
And by association, this is always perceived as an attack on a willingness to acknowledge the possibility of there being 'more' to life. It ain't. This is the Church - it's got nothing to do with God.
Zebonka12 wrote: "zero, I mean ZERO boundaries"
Er ... when did I ever claim to have them? First of all, there are actually a couple of things I haven't joked about here (I'd be a fool if I named either of them), but the real issue here is that I don't actually lay claim to any higher standards or boundaries in that regard. But you seem to, and I think it's actually laughable that you can parade such a double standard in broad daylight like that.
The point I was making is that I haven't got anything to live up to - it's just hilarious that for all of your folderol in this thread, you'd still resort to such base tactics. It puts the rest of your posts into a pretty clear context, I'll say that much.
And my issue isn't even whether or not using Special Olympics as some kind of hyperbole is offensive or not. I'm not offended. For one thing it's always struck me as a bit bizarre to use a bunch of physically impaired athletes as an example of something pointless, frivolous, below-par or pathetic - considering a lot of them are able to achieve more in their chosen field than a lot of the perfectly able people who use the phrase in the first place!
It's not even offensiveness I'm talking about here, I want to make that clear - it's more the laziness inherent in using the term, and I suppose the bold inaccuracy of it.
A world record amount of logical contortions to reach that moral position. Well done.
The Real Wizard wrote:GratefulFan wrote:
It's not inherently evil or suspicious that a large religious organization has assets and investments and owns businesses.
It'd better not be suspicious since they aren't taxed.
There is nothing benevolent about this action. They are bailing out the country because it is good for business, which is what churches ultimately are.
And arguably the most successful business of all. They've lasted for 1700 years on the basis of a story of a guy being crucified and coming back to life on the third day - a story that's been told at least 15 times before in traditions prior to theirs (knowledge of which is actively suppressed to this day), a fact which I suspect at least 95 percent of its customers ("adherents" is a somewhat misleading term) aren't aware of.
Take it from here, Mr. Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ZcA4uGgRI
FYI, these are not "absurd, insulting and unsupported generalizations." They are undeniable fact.
Carry on..
George Carlin. Gotta love him. However, your post is a random selection of cobbled together ideas -- other people's ideas, naturally -- and that seldom makes for a convincing argument.
My tuppenceworth, in a nutshell. Some of you find it easy to fling casual abuse against Christianity and Christians, passing it off as rational debate. And yet you would also be the first to attack anyone else taking the same casually stupid and abusive approach if the topic was about Islam, Buddhism etc. The transparent facade you hide behind is that this is about "religion" in general, but it's not. And even if it were, the way you express your ideas is unfriendly at best, and bigoted at worst. No wonder GF lost patience with you. And your repsonse to that? She must be mentally unbalanced. Very liberal and open-minded ...
The bloody irony of you trying to take the moral and intellectual high ground in a discussion where you have done nothing except come up with short flame-posts! Holly, if you had an ounce of decency, you'd be ashamed of yourself. Apparently, you don't even realize what a complete ass you make of yourself. You're free to disagree with Zeb, but if you dismiss his entire explanation of the point you were too lazy to be bothered reading with a thoroughly immature and superficial flame, you show yourself to be a sad little troll. I find GratefulFan's behaviour in this topic deeply disturbing and fanatical, but at least GratefulFan attempts a real discussion from time to time. You, Holly, are just trolling.
That last post of yours is truly a masterpiece of defective reasoning. Here's your argument in schematics:
1) You're not opposed to religion in general, you're anti-Christian
2) If the discussion were about some other religion, you'd be all for it
3) If I'm actually wrong and points 1 and 2 don't apply, you're still bigots.
And you claim the authority to dismiss other people's reasoning? That is beyond sad.
1) You're not opposed to religion in general, you're anti-Christian
2) If the discussion were about some other religion, you'd be all for it
3) If I'm actually wrong and points 1 and 2 don't apply, you're still bigots.
And you claim the authority to dismiss other people's reasoning? That is beyond sad.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: That last post of yours is truly a masterpiece of defective reasoning. Here's your argument in schematics:
1) You're not opposed to religion in general, you're anti-Christian
2) If the discussion were about some other religion, you'd be all for it
3) If I'm actually wrong and points 1 and 2 don't apply, you're still bigots.
And you claim the authority to dismiss other people's reasoning? That is beyond sad.
Clearly you can't understand basic concepts, Go ask your MA supervisor for help.