That's dumb, even for him.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
This smells of The Onion and makes me cry. I am appalled that such a blatant oxymoron can be seriously uttered by a prospective presidential contender.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:...prospective presidential contender
Oh don't worry, he won't be doing much contending. I'll be surprised if he survives the primaries.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
*face-palm*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich rattled his sabres March 7, telling a friendly Fox News interviewer that U.S. power could suppress Col. Qaddafi’s air power “this evening.”
“All we have to do his suppress his air force which we could do in minutes,” said the ex-House Speaker.
Gingrich followed up with a sarcastic remark implying a lack of focus on Libya by President Obama, contrasting Obama’s restraint with the aggressive, out-front no-fly-zone advocacy of France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy.
“I ws very frankly disappointed that Sarkozy did not share with us his Final Four picks,” Gingrich remarked. (Obama had gone on ESPN to share his bracket-by-bracket March Madness forecast.)
Now that Obama has enforced a no-fly zone, and knocked out much of Qaddafi’s air defense, Gingrich is taking a different tack.
“I would not have intervened,” Gingrich said Wednesday on the “Today Show”. “I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”
Gingrich is a dirtbag in all ways shy of being a literal bag of dirt (which has some utility, like in gardening or renovating).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: This smells of The Onion and makes me cry.
i see what you did there
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
That is adorable.
But really, as an atheist I can attest to just how immoral and evil we are. We dont kill because someone insulted our favorite fictional characters and we accept that our children may grow up to be homosexual, and not even feel like disowning them for it.
We atheist's are truely destructive and disgusting people.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Yeah I'm not getting my hopes up for 2012 right now. Bachmann and Gingrich will run for sure, as will Palin. None of them have a chance in hell to win.
Romney I'm a *bit* more optimistic about, but I am not sure he will run.
It's not looking like it is going to be a good election year in 2012 for Republicans. I'm not even excited to hear the debates.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: That is adorable.
But really, as an atheist I can attest to just how immoral and evil we are. We dont kill because someone insulted our favorite fictional characters and we accept that our children may grow up to be homosexual, and not even feel like disowning them for it.
We atheist's are truely destructive and disgusting people.
What a lovely and tolerant response...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I certainly agree AchillesHeel's response was somewhat spiteful, Armoth, in context - the context being that evil secular atheists are going to tag team with (even more evil? Equally evil?) radical Islamists and take down sublime America. That's what's being talked about. If AchillesHeel were talking to religious people in general, I think your irritation would be merited.
Talking in response to the words of a deceitful, hypocritical schmuck like Gingrich on the other hand, though...well.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Still, Rakeesh. Why go there? I find the comment offensive, and I don't think that a good excuse was that he was offended first.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Sarcasm and derision seems like a fair way to respond to people who attempt to marginalize and demonize you in such a blatant and bigoted manner.
I'm just appalled that it's still OK to refer to atheists in this way - as if we are some sort of "other" which threatens to destroy our society. It long ago became impolitic to say that about Jews or Catholics. Ironically it's our relative lack of influence and representation that makes it OK to spread fears about us taking over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sarcasm and derision seems like a fair way to respond to people who attempt to marginalize and demonize you in such a blatant and bigoted manner.
Pretty much this, Armoth. Why go there? Probably because a group one belongs to was, well, marginalized and demonized in a way that's pretty commonplace. Is it the best, most effective way to respond? Well, of course not. Are religious people in any position at all, really, to get offended when atheists respond to ridiculous, constant, offensively hateful stereotypes? Even ones that don't make sense at all? (Gotta love the secular atheist - as opposed to what other kind of atheist, I wonder - and radical Islamist team-up?)
Not really. Not while also appearing sensible at any rate, I don't think. It's up to everyone to make their own determination of course, it just seems pretty silly to me. For much the same reason, on a smaller scale, that I don't blame my sister for getting irritated (when she does) by blond jokes-because she hears them more often than most people, and sometimes they're pretty offensive, and sometimes they're very offensive from very stupid and offensive people.
It doesn't seem very reasonable, to me, to approach someone who responds to what amounts to a frothing in-your-face demagogue with angry sarcasm and say to the person attacked, "Your comment was offensive."
ETA: The more I think about it, the more I find that reaction - which is pretty commonplace - pretty strange. Take a maligned minority, in this case atheists, and have someone from the majority - in this case, theists in general and Christians in particular - insult or otherwise offend upon `em. Our culture, and most cultures I've read about, have pretty clear expectations about how the minority must respond in that situation and it generally never includes anger, outrage, or offense. Much less anything rising to the level of the initial offense, even when it's recognized that the minority in question is maligned.
We see it happen with women all the time. Plop a lady down in the workplace or out on the street, and subject her to a textbook example of sexual harassment. Should she respond to unwanted advances with heaps of scorn, or an unwanted touch with a sharp slap or punch, there's an excellent chance she'd be villified and scorned herself-and her 'victim' would be, well, exonerated.
Now I'm not saying this Gingrich quote is sexual harassment or anything, but the dynamic really feels similar, Armoth. Speaking for and probably to far-right conservative Christians, Gingrich demonized atheists quite badly. Achillesheel responded by sarcastically mentioning some of the more infamous failings of extreme religious people past and present. Strip religion out of the question, if a Dallas Cowboys fan insulted the, I don't know, Redskins (for a good old fashioned rivalry) in personal terms and a Redskin fan responded by bringing up a bunch of embarrassing stuff the Cowboys had done, I'd be very surprised if you thought it was offensive.
[ March 30, 2011, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It is possible for an atheist government to be placed in danger by Islamic extremists, right?
I mean, I think Newt is...well, a newt... but it seems like people are deliberately warping what he said just they can be outraged at his ignorance.
Just wait 5 min for him to say something that is actually that stupid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems to me the statement was quite stupid even if every bit of it was taken entirely literally, Kwea.
First of all, we are a secular government already-that's stupid, ignorant point number one. The jackass was in Congress no less, so at that point I'm inclined to amp the charge up well past stupidity and into something worse. But he's sure to throw in that dreaded word - 'secular' - to scare up religious conservatives.
The second profoundly stupid point he made was in suggesting that there's any danger our government is going to be all, mostly, or even a slight minority atheist in nature any time in the near future. By what mechanism is that supposed to happen? Are all the other voters just going to stay home for a whole series of elections? Are the sneaky atheists just going to steal a series of elections? Just will themselves to power somehow?
But even if we accepted stupid, offensive points one and two of the overall statement, we're still left with a ridiculous bit of hackery: once the secular atheists have taken power, how are the radical Islamists to take power from them? Are the secular atheists going to let power be taken from them by whatever mechanism they gained power from the overwhelming majority of theists? Or are they going to make common cause with the perfidious radical Islamists? Why would they do so? They're already in power, so presumably it would have to be some sort of victory of the radical Islamists.
We don't have to wait five minutes. It actually was that stupid.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Sarcasm and derision seems like a fair way to respond to people who attempt to marginalize and demonize you in such a blatant and bigoted manner.
Still doesn't score you any points. Bringing your sarcasm and derision to a neutral site like this thread, where nobody has started bagging on atheists yet, is rude.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suppose much depends on how AchillesHeel intended the response. If he meant it towards all religious people in general, the rudeness rises sharply. If he meant it towards far-right religious folks...well, frankly especially when they start baggin' on atheists, they don't have a whole lot of room to talk. And there is a tendancy there to reject homosexuals, and to inject religion into warfare.
So I'd say there's some slight rudeness, but extremely understandable rudeness. Understandable to the extent of wondering why a guy would wander up and criticize the guy responding to the insult, rather than the one insulting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did Newt join Hatrack while I wasn't looking?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's the topic under discussion, though-that's what AchillesHeel was responding to. And we respond 'directly' to politicians on HR all the time around here.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Does anyone have a link to the entire statement or interview? I think his meaning is quite different from how you are all interpreting it, though I agree that it is still a pretty dumb thing to say. It is hard to say for sure without the context though.
I suspect what he means is that America is becoming a secular atheist society and that will make us more vulnerable to domination by fundamentalist islam. Not that the two will tag team to overthrow us. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Well, I found a bit more complete account of his statements and now I am even more confused about his meaning. Sounds more and more like an incoherent rant.
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I find the comment offensive
His comment only seems offensive if you make certain assumptions about his motives and target. But since those motives have not been made known, I don't know what usefulness there is in choosing to be offended by the comment.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I'm confused about this Wingracer. Why would a government controlled by atheists, weary of any religious influence in politics, be MORE vunerable to be taken over by Islamic extremists? The atheists are the ones out there suing on issues to do with separation of church and state, trying to remove religious influence from schools and the halls of congress.
Or am I missing something?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I am too strider. That was my initial take on what he meant, not my own beliefs. But after seeing a bit more of his statement, I am even less sure of his meaning. I just don't get it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Perhaps what he means is that both are a threat, but not that they would tag team us. I have no idea. Who cares? The guy seems off his rocker to me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: That is adorable.
But really, as an atheist I can attest to just how immoral and evil we are. We dont kill because someone insulted ***our favorite fictional characters*** and we accept that our children may grow up to be homosexual, and not even feel like disowning them for it.
We atheist's are truely destructive and disgusting people.
I found this unnecessarily rude, even if in response to comments about Newt and his ilk. Opposed to religious belief--that's fine. You can use a little more restraint, though. There are plenty of people here who have religious beliefs but who don't agree with Newt. No need to alienate them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I guess I just don't find that very rude or insulting, since I take it as a given atheists think God is a fictional character anyway. Furthermore, to me it seems a bit peculiar for a theist (aside from the very most open-armed theist) to find that sort of remark rude or objectionable, since it's very likely they too think and have even said - either among themselves or outwardly - similar things as, "Your belief in God is mistaken or fictitious."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am delighted that even as a non-atheist, I can make the same claims! Woohoo!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Like I said (or tried to imply, I guess), it's not what was said. I can take that. It doesn't ruin my world to hear someone say God is a fictional character. I'm not overly offended by it. I just didn't think saying it was necessary. It's like choosing the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your example when bringing up belief systems. Ha ha, I get it, this one has as much value to you, the athiest, as the Judeo-Christian God. But do you really have to?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
To me, it's just not an appropriate way to respond. I understand that Atheists feel like the minority, but I grew up in a very secular world, and also feel like a minority when it comes to my religious beliefs.
I understand the reaction, I just don't think it's appropriate, and should a person have the capacity to rise above, I think they should, for the sake of affording tolerance and respect to those who have a different opinion.
I think it would be despicable of me, when insulted by an atheist, to call him a self-indulgent delusional elitist who clings to false-constructs to find meaning in his life. Even if I was very angry or hurt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it would be despicable of me, when insulted by an atheist, to call him a self-indulgent delusional elitist who clings to false-constructs to find meaning in his life.
Leaving aside the obvious -- that you'd be opening yourself to some pretty serious ironic payback if you did that -- why would it be despicable?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think it would be despicable of me, when insulted by an atheist, to call him a self-indulgent delusional elitist who clings to false-constructs to find meaning in his life.
Leaving aside the obvious -- that you'd be opening yourself to some pretty serious ironic payback if you did that -- why would it be despicable?
Because I have respect for the opinions and calculations of others. And I think that the tolerance and respect we all have for one another is a value that allows all of us to share this world together.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am delighted that even as a non-atheist, I can make the same claims! Woohoo!
QFT.
I can find straw men among atheists too, if you want me to AchillesHeel....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because I have respect for the opinions and calculations of others.
So you don't believe that atheists are self-indulgent delusional elitists who cling to false constructs to find meaning in life?
If you don't believe that, why would you consider saying it?
If you did believe it, why would saying so be despicable?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Newt is clearyly trying to galvanize the christian right by demonizing muslims rather than terrorists and also atheists for being... well not christian. I find it offensive that because I dont believe god or any comparable version therein that I must be a moronic amoral scumbag with solopsism on the mind. Sarcasm is my favorite defense mechanism, and when a christian calls atheism evil my knee jerk reaction is to point out the evils of much of the religion.
Im sorry about offending anybody, it was not my intent. I am not ashamed of the fact that I dont believe, its a choice I made on my own and I dont take kindly to being attacked due to it. The only person I meant to offend was Newt Gingrich.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
1) I believe it is true for some, not all
2) Among those for whom I believe it to be true, the comment is non-productive, only insulting. If I want to constructively criticize someone else, I will earn their trust, and be mindful of their ego when suggesting something which may be critical to them. Harshly criticizing someone in such a way is selfish - it makes me feel better about myself by putting that person down, without paying any mind to their ability, at that time, to hear the criticism.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Perhaps more important than the inappropriateness of the response, saying theists "kill because someone insulted their favorite fictional character" also just serves to reenforce the Gingrich view that atheists don't understand and are a threat to theism.
So it's only a helpful thing to say to theists if your goal is to make theists think poorly of you... just like Gingrich's comments mainly serve to demonstrate either that he doesn't understand radical Islam and atheism or that he's simply willing to say ridiculous things to play to the crowd.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Aw, c'mon, Tom. I think my mother is a narcissistic, infantile money-grubber, but I don't say that to her face. Not even to get her back for insulting me. There doesn't need to be a better reason than the fact that I'm not three years old.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Armoth, atheist's as a whole have no interests beyond existance and at the very least personal peace, I was reacting to the accusation the we are detrimental to society as atheist's. I indicated no belief system, no social group or class and I truely regret offending you or anyone else, I am sorry.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Newt is clearyly trying to galvanize the christian right by demonizing muslims rather than terrorists and also atheists for being... well not christian. I find it offensive that because I dont believe god or any comparable version therein that I must be a moronic amoral scumbag with solopsism on the mind. Sarcasm is my favorite defense mechanism, and when a christian calls atheism evil my knee jerk reaction is to point out the evils of much of the religion.
Im sorry about offending anybody, it was not my intent. I am not ashamed of the fact that I dont believe, its a choice I made on my own and I dont take kindly to being attacked due to it. The only person I meant to offend was Newt Gingrich.
cool. thanks.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I grew up in a very secular world, and also feel like a minority when it comes to my religious beliefs.
Powerful politicians don't tend to get away with saying scary things about the Jews destroying America. I realize that time is not far gone in the US, but it is gone. Atheists are still fair game, so I hope you'll excuse us if we occasionally respond ...colorfully... to such sentiments.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I grew up in a very secular world, and also feel like a minority when it comes to my religious beliefs.
Powerful politicians don't tend to get away with saying scary things about the Jews destroying America. I realize that time is not far gone in the US, but it is gone. Atheists are still fair game, so I hope you'll excuse us if we occasionally respond ...colorfully... to such sentiments.
I don't mean to take away from the unfairness and pain involved in your situation. But that doesn't mean that I don't have it hard either.
I live in a very liberal state, and don't get me wrong, I love NY, but in class, people say plenty of offensive stuff about religious people, and it's not exactly fun times.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I can relate to that Armoth, being atheist straight-edge and independant in Arizona is not exactly comfortable and its hard to get along with people sometimes. But I am jealous of how one can instantly have a community of family where ever one goes based on faith and methods of worship, its not like we have atheist meetings.
Edit to add.
I just found an atheist dating site, with that considered I guess there must be some meetings around. Just dont let Newt know that we have organized.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Respond colorfully, but to the person who made the comments, and not with a bash on theists in general. Nobody at Hatrack merited the sarcasm this time.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I can relate to that Armoth, being atheist straight-edge and independant in Arizona is not exactly comfortable and its hard to get along with people sometimes. But I am jealous of how one can instantly have a community of family where ever one goes based on faith and methods of worship, its not like we have atheist meetings.
Edit to add.
I just found an atheist dating site, with that considered I guess there must be some meetings around. Just dont let Newt know that we have organized.
That disturbs me greatly....
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I can relate to that Armoth, being atheist straight-edge and independant in Arizona is not exactly comfortable and its hard to get along with people sometimes. But I am jealous of how one can instantly have a community of family where ever one goes based on faith and methods of worship, its not like we have atheist meetings.
Edit to add.
I just found an atheist dating site, with that considered I guess there must be some meetings around. Just dont let Newt know that we have organized.
I hear that. My best friend is an atheist, he used to be a very passionate Orthodox Jew. He misses the tremendous sense of community that religion provides for. I try to encourage him to get involved in something. But it's not really the same - there's something familial that isn't easily recreated.
I wonder if that can be replicated for athesist somehow...
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Maybe its more attainable in more liberal places, and in social circles that uneducated persons like myself dont regularly attend. When I tell people that its hard for me to date because I dont like intoxication in any form save requisitly medical and I prefer well read women they tell me to go to a mormon church, I tell them that Im atheist and they just shrug thier shoulders.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Should she respond to unwanted advances with heaps of scorn, or an unwanted touch with a sharp slap or punch, there's an excellent chance she'd be villified and scorned herself-and her 'victim' would be, well, exonerated.
Maybe this is part of why I find this conversation alien. I would have thought that the incident would be captured on cell phone video and she'd be cheered. *shrug*
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I can relate to that Armoth, being atheist straight-edge and independant in Arizona is not exactly comfortable and its hard to get along with people sometimes. But I am jealous of how one can instantly have a community of family where ever one goes based on faith and methods of worship, its not like we have atheist meetings.
Edit to add.
I just found an atheist dating site, with that considered I guess there must be some meetings around. Just dont let Newt know that we have organized.
That disturbs me greatly....
Um, which part?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Maybe this is part of why I find this conversation alien. I would have thought that the incident would be captured on cell phone video and she'd be cheered. *shrug*
Oh, it would be-depending on the audience. On the other hand, I remember working in places when I was younger when the reaction would've been quite different.
And, heck, even in this situation the reaction is different than cheering: touch for touch, unacceptable; insult for insult, it's offensive and rude. That's kind of what I was getting at.
--------
quote:Respond colorfully, but to the person who made the comments, and not with a bash on theists in general. Nobody at Hatrack merited the sarcasm this time.
Was anyone at Hatrack bashed? Anymore than when a person on Hatrack says, "I belong to such and such religion that feels this it is the only correct religion?" I don't follow HR as much as I used to, but I remember a time when those sorts of discussions weren't uncommon, and I know for a fact that there are many people here who believe exactly along those lines about their given religious ideas. So I guess I don't grant that it was inherently a bash, unless we're going to say that it's also a bash anytime someone belonging to an exclusive religion makes a statement of their beliefs too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: The inital statement that Armoth took issue with was not, "My name is Achilles Heel and I don't believe in God."
It's stupid to me that when somebody like Newt Gingrich makes an asinine comment, we all have to play the "I'm offended that you were offended" game. Then we all get to talk about how oppressed we are in our respective societies/neighborhoods, and try to present our martyr credentials so that somebody comes out on top, and is therefore permitted to act surly. We've had this conversation before, you don't get to act like a jerk (not that AH was trying to act like a jerk, or even succeeding in my book) because a group you belong to is oppressed. Those debts are never paid, and the ledgers kept are suspect at best.
So how about the next time Richard Dawkins says, "Let's stop being so damned respectful" I'll pretend he is speaking for himself, and that there are those who agree with him, but so long as nobody has chimed in with a "Darn right" after quoting him, that nobody *here* actually said that, and I don't need to respond as if they did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Originally posted by Armoth:
quote: ]I don't mean to take away from the unfairness and pain involved in your situation. But that doesn't mean that I don't have it hard either.
I live in a very liberal state, and don't get me wrong, I love NY, but in class, people say plenty of offensive stuff about religious people, and it's not exactly fun times.
If the offensive things are false then I say so. If the offensive things are true, then I have a problem.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
In context, it's perfectly fine to state your opinions, be they theistic or atheistic. If provoked directly, I'd say you're warranted to return with some sarcasm, if that's what floats your boat. In this case, it came off as a bit of a cheap shot.
I certainly don't think it's a bash when someone says they don't believe in God. I hope nobody does when I say I do. I don't take offense when someone expresses skepticism about the existence of a god. I try not to express my belief in God in a way that will offend those who don't share that belief.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The thing is, though, is that I suspect that's a much more compelling outlook when one is in the majority than when one is in the minority. It's easy to say, "It's silly to keep records, and it's not right to be rude when someone is rude to you first."
I mean don't get me wrong, you're right, it is silly. But do you see why it might be a bit more important for the majority in any given population to support that kind of thinking than it would be for the minority? After all, who benefits most from that outlook? Ideally if everyone held to it, everyone would benefit equally, but of course that's not going to happen: even if we assume an exactly equal proportion of, shall we say, proselytizing rude atheists as we did proselytizing rude theists, there are still tons more theists and thus the atheists are going to be offended upon first much more often.
Put another way, those debts are often never paid, you're right. But they can very often be eased if instead of saying to the member of a minority who responds to some bunch of offensive intolerance, "Your response was rude and it offended me!" saying something like, "Hey, listen-I agree the guy was a jackass, and he speaks only for himself. But listen, what you said in response could also address more than just him as well, you know." It doesn't seem fair to hold the person first insulted to the same standards of civility as the one doing the insulting. Or rather, to ignore the one and address the other because 'his statement was offensive too'.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It took me ages to figure out what about the initial rude comment was rude until advice for robots highlighted the "favourite fictional characters" bit.
Given that Newt Gringich thinks that atheists are radically destroying the universe, I think that the barbed response was appropriate... to him. It was a private comment intended for the justifiably insulted atheist community that was spoken in a public forum.
But then, while I think while the individual rights of people to be religious should be respected provided no mental or physical injury is being inflicted in its name, religion as a concept should not be more (or, I suppose, less) respected than other ideas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Define majority? In some senses I am the majority culture, for example those who believe in God vastly outnumber those who do not. I am heterosexual, I and my heteros vastly outnumber those who are of an alternate persuasion. I'm also a Mormon, so that's more than 97% of the country that is Non-Mormon. I'm a registered Democrat in Utah County, the redest county in the state that is often called the redest in the union. I'm American, but I grew up overseas, so for many people I'm "out of touch" with what it means to be an American. I'm certain if I ran for president that issue would be brought up, just as it was for Pres. Obama.
I've said this before, when people lash out because they are smarting at being oppressed for being a minority, I sympathize, but I also tell them, "Man, I'm your friend, you need to check your fire and not take shots at me along with everyone who happens to have the same identifying characteristic." We're not actually all in the same boat.
There isn't a single theist here who approves of what Newt Gingrich said, so why do we have to take his lashings?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There isn't a single theist here who approves of what Newt Gingrich said, so why do we have to take his lashings?
We don't. I, for example, thought to myself - and this is exactly how my thought process went, I'm not trying to snark here - "What's he responding to? He's responding to Newt here. If I were an atheist, and I were smarting from that kind of rhetoric, who would I be talking to? Theists in general, or radical far-right Christian theists who despise atheists and Islamists in particular? Probably the latter." Now granted there are a few factors that went into that thought process: AH seems like a nice guy, so I suspect I wanted to believe nicely of him, there's a bias. I really just can't stand the hell out of Newt, and that's much more likely to be a bigger bias.
quote: I've said this before, when people lash out because they are smarting at being oppressed for being a minority, I sympathize, but I also tell them, "Man, I'm your friend, you need to check your fire and not take shots at me along with everyone who happens to have the same identifying characteristic." We're not actually all in the same boat.
I agree. I just think a more effective way to sympathize would be to say, "You're right, Joe Schmo is a jackass, and I understand why you feel that way," rather than progressing to shades of 'rude is rude'.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The initial comment was a molehill, and a small one. Now, here on page 2, I'm getting increasingly more sorry for making a mountain out of it.
But this sort of thing does happen fairly often here. I'm certainly not saying that the atheist camp is the only one doing it. The theists don't get a special pass. That's fine. But face it, religion gets discussed frequently at Hatrack. Many good community members have left Hatrack over discussions on religion that got increasingly disrespectful. If there's one topic where we should be especially sensitive and respectful, this is it.
I think Newt is a piece of work too, btw.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I monumentally regret my attempt at admittedly unsophisticated humor.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Duly noted.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: But face it, religion gets discussed frequently at Hatrack. Many good community members have left Hatrack over discussions on religion that got increasingly disrespectful. If there's one topic where we should be especially sensitive and respectful, this is it.
QFT. And directed at Rakeesh, not AchillesHeel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: But face it, religion gets discussed frequently at Hatrack. Many good community members have left Hatrack over discussions on religion that got increasingly disrespectful. If there's one topic where we should be especially sensitive and respectful, this is it.
QFT. And directed at Rakeesh, not AchillesHeel.
Indeed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree we should be respectful-I think, no surprise (it's a subjective thing of course) that we're defining respectful differently.
To me, treating someone who's been wrongfully and with prejudice insulted and themselves replied badly, the way to treat them with respect is to express regret that they were insulted AND that they handled it badly-to try to help, in other words.
That's not what happened here to start this discussion. Instead a bigot spouted bigotry and someone replied with what *might* be considered a shot at everyone religious (though not actually different than most monotheists believe). And was told *he* was being offensive.
That's the dynamic I was commenting on, that people, when 'their' group is picked on (they think), will jump to defense even if a worse transgression prompted the picking on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So I'd say there's some slight rudeness, but extremely understandable rudeness. Understandable to the extent of wondering why a guy would wander up and criticize the guy responding to the insult, rather than the one insulting.
I'm fascinated by it all right now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And, heck, even in this situation the reaction is different than cheering: touch for touch, unacceptable; insult for insult, it's offensive and rude. That's kind of what I was getting at.
Oh, I know what you're getting at and I totally agree. I just found that situation (and this situation), well, alien.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree we should be respectful-I think, no surprise (it's a subjective thing of course) that we're defining respectful differently.
To me, treating someone who's been wrongfully and with prejudice insulted and themselves replied badly, the way to treat them with respect is to express regret that they were insulted AND that they handled it badly-to try to help, in other words.
That's not what happened here to start this discussion. Instead a bigot spouted bigotry and someone replied with what *might* be considered a shot at everyone religious (though not actually different than most monotheists believe). And was told *he* was being offensive.
That's the dynamic I was commenting on, that people, when 'their' group is picked on (they think), will jump to defense even if a worse transgression prompted the picking on.
Or could it be that we genuinely expect more out of AchillesHeel than we do Newt Gingrich? I know I certainly have a higher opinion of the former than I do the later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do too. But is a person allowed to get angry when a former House Speaker starts making bigoted slurs against them? That is to say, are we not to make allowances for someone who responds with anger to hateful invective? I'm really having a hard time understanding this. I'm not saying, "Don't criticize what AchillesHeel said at all." I'm saying there's a context, and it doesn't seem reasonable to me to act as though any given statement exists in a vaccuum.
Thus, acknowledge the context which when talking to AH about it would be to first talk about what Newt said, and then how he handled it. Furthermore, this difference in expectation seems pretty unreasonable too-even if Newt weren't a former House Speaker. If he were just some random theist, why does he get a pass on spewing hateful invective? Just because that's what he's known for? That seems a strange standard to me.
I know he's not here, but it seems pretty clear to me that Newt and people like him are who AH was talking to. Dude said as much, he was reacting to the idea that atheists are noxious in and of themselves to society as a whole. What it comes down to is that I don't understand why it's important to chastise someone for reacting because they might have been insulting the majority as a whole, but not commiserate with them over the undeniably bit of insulting invective that went before. With behaving as though the one never happened. In effect, if not intent, it treats it as though it's acceptable.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Look people, it has been made obvious that AH meant no harm by his statement. And even if he did, he has apologized for it (which on a side note, I don't think he needed to do, but respect the doing) so can we get back to the topic and figure out what the heck NG was talking about? Is the guy just nuts or was there some kernel of truth buried in the lost context?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
While I am mostly bewildered at how much attention has been given to something I only gave half a thought to, I beleive this is still more productive than giving Gingrich the time of day.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I (obviously) find the thread drift interesting, and think it's a topic worth discussing in and of itself-how people in general and we in particular respond to people who respond to rudeness with rudeness (or even perceived rudeness), under what circumstances. *shrug* It's a discussion I'm enjoying, and as for Newt, if anyone actually thinks there's anything of value to be mined from his remarks, of course they're welcome to chime in anytime.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's like a discussion about the meta discussion I was trying to start.
I should have responded directly to AH about the comment and been clear from the start why I was objecting to his wording. Sorry, AH. Even while saying we should be more sensitive in threads like this, I was not. I will try to keep perspective and be more respectful myself in the future.
I do still think my point is valid, though, if I can say that without sending this off on another tangent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I should add that looking back, I may have been coming off as very irritated or even angry, what with the use of italics and word choice. I wanted to make clear that I never rose above passionately frustrated, but enjoyably frustrated, y'know? Not, well, disrespectfully, contemptuously frustrated. Re-reading I think I communicated tone badly, and I'm sorry about that.
I think your point is valid too, or rather the multiple points you were making. I just feel like a bit of the picture was missing in the focus on what the rude-responder said to the exclusion of what the rude-instigator said. (This sets aside, for the sake of argument, questions of whether the response was itself rude or not.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I dont make a habit of begrudging strangers on a discussion board that I choose to venture to, and I understand the confusion and brisk responses. So dont worry about it one bit.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
The whole idea that you can be a fundamentalist Muslim and an atheist at the same time is ignorance beyond sanity. Yet I've seen the same argument made by Beck, and on some Christian Radio I've listened to.
One of Mr. Gringich's points about the evil of Islam is that when one of their fanatics does something bad the rest of the Islamic community does not complain nearly as loud as they complain when non-Muslims respond harshly. The fanatics blow up some buildings--the Muslims don't say much--but if we attack the country that supported them, they scream very loud. This, he states, is proof that all Muslims are really as evil as the fanatics.
This discussion of Newt's foolish comments has been derailed by a few moderate Christians. They are not screaming about Newt's terrible logic, but about the attack non-Christians made against that logic, and by extension, against Christianity itself.
If we follow Mr. Gringrich's logic, then all Christianity must be as evil, or as foolish, as Newt himself. If we follow that logic--moderate Christians don't exist any more than moderate Muslims.
Moderate atheists do exist because they have spoken up in this thread saying the first comment was a bit rude. They have yet to speak up condemning those who responded negatively to that comment.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
But, that is NOT what he said. Here is the most complete quote I have seen:
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
To me, it sounds like he is speaking of two different threats. Secular atheists within this country AND Islamic fundamentalists from outside.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
As one of the Christian moderates/extremists in question (I think), let me defend myself.
First, an apology. I shouldn't have called the snippet I highlighted in AH's initial post a bash on theists in general. That was a poor choice of words that did just what I was objecting to. I am sorry for that. The snippet in question wasn't intended to be a bash anyway, as AH later said.
It did stick out to me like a cheap shot when I read it, however, and the whole purpose of my comments was to point out that shots like that can sour the tone of a Hatrack discussion quickly (in the which I helped derail the thread).
Now, I was certainly not screaming about non-Christians attacking Newt's logic and therefore all of Christianity. Heck, I don't think AH was even talking about the Christian deity when he mentioned the fictional characters.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Wing, it still sounds ridiculous to me. If any country is dominated by radical Islamists, it can no longer be a Secular Atheist country--since the main goal of radical Islamists is to create Islamic States. The first rule of an Islamic state is to believe in God as described by the Koran.
He is speaking in a Christian church, and is conjuring up all the fiends he can to scare the good Christian people.
There are two ways in which people imagine they can be good Christians. One is hard--you live a Christ-like life. One is easy--you fight Satan.
If there is no Satan with in reach, you create a Satan-out of Muslims, Abortion Providers, Liberals, Atheists, or Homosexuals--who ever is handy, can be made to seem threatening, and can't really fight back. (Muslims can fight back, and Muslim terrorists do fight back, but they aren't that big a threat to anyone is middle-America).
Communists, Jews, Catholics and Racial Integrators are the old Satans that are no longer viable. President Obama is currently the Satan of choice.
Mr. Gringrich has led a very, very un-Christ-like life. He's going for the simple "Satan Fighter" path. It is the wrong path.
But that wasn't my point. My point is that Mr. Newt Grigich's fear mongering and sad logic are an insult to Atheists and Muslims, and make Christians of all flavors look very bad. Instead of complaining about his lack of logic, taste, or Christian virtues, instead of saying "He doesn't represent true Christian virtues" you defend him.
Do you believe that an "Radical Islamist dominated Secular Atheist" takeover is on its way to the US?
On a side note, would that be so much worse than a "Radical Christian dominated Evangelical Theocracy called the United States" which is the flip side of his argument?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Look, I agree it is ridiculous. I just want you all to respond to what he ACTUALLY said, not what most seem to be thinking he said. You posted this:
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
as if it were a direct quote. That is NOT what he said. If you are going to quote him, quote his actual words. Many people on here like to blast Fox for skewing quotes, taking things out of context, etc. Hold yourself to the same standard.
As for an atheist country being dominated by Islam, it could happen. And no, I am not saying he is right, just speaking hypothetically. If an Atheist country were to be conquered by an Islamic one, the people don't instantly become Muslims. You now have an atheist country (the majority of the people) dominated by Muslims (the government and military).
I'm not trying to defend Newt here, I just want a little integrity in the discussion. Get it right.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't think a foreign conquest makes sense in context. He's talking about a "struggle over the nature of America" not a struggle over America itself. And if America was to be conquered by a Muslim state, I don't think an important worry would be whether they understood "what it once meant to be an American."
I think a more probable interpretation is he's pandering to his base which is worried that they'll lose the culture war to secular atheists who would put in power, not foreign Muslims, but American "Muslims" like Obama.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: As for an atheist country being dominated by Islam, it could happen. And no, I am not saying he is right, just speaking hypothetically. If an Atheist country were to be conquered by an Islamic one, the people don't instantly become Muslims. You now have an atheist country (the majority of the people) dominated by Muslims (the government and military).
Certainly an atheist country could be dominated by Islam. The question, and the one where Newt's incredible dishonesty comes into play, is how does it happen? He clearly wasn't talking about some foreign violent conquest of America, first of all, because he was talking about struggling over the 'nature of America' and 'what it means to be an American'. Not repelling invaders at the border, though he's a far right demagogue so that sort of rhetoric probably won't be long in coming in any campaign he's features in.
quote:I'm not trying to defend Newt here, I just want a little integrity in the discussion. Get it right.
I believe you're seeking integrity in the discussion, but I don't believe you've examined what Newt said very critically, and considered your own chastisement of the responses of others in light of his remarks. He did very clearly suggest that secular atheists are bad, unAmerican threats as well as radical Islamists-and then he went on to link the two together very specifically at some nebulous point in the future. I suppose that might have been an accident of language, but it seems pretty darn unlikely to me.
You really have to squint and look sideways at his remarks to see much else than blatant rabble-rousing and base-pandering, Wingracer. What it looks like to me is less that you're upset about dishonesty among those criticizing him than that he's been caught being so blatantly dishonest himself, and people get to say gotcha so gleefully.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I took it to mean that when the atheists take over, we will no longer have God on our side to defend against the radical Islamists.
Mainly I think he is yelling out the buzzwords that fire up his base, and logic or consistency is not necessary there.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] What it looks like to me is less that you're upset about dishonesty among those criticizing him than that he's been caught being so blatantly dishonest himself, and people get to say gotcha so gleefully.
Not the case at all. I have said at least twice now that I think he is nuts. Whoever it is that said he was just pandering to his base is probably spot on.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I took it to mean that when the atheists take over, we will no longer have God on our side to defend against the radical Islamists.
Mainly I think he is yelling out the buzzwords that fire up his base, and logic or consistency is not necessary there.
Bingo, we have a winner. That is exactly what I was trying to get at but first had to shoot down everything else.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] Certainly an atheist country could be dominated by Islam. The question, and the one where Newt's incredible dishonesty comes into play, is how does it happen? He clearly wasn't talking about some foreign violent conquest of America, first of all, because he was talking about struggling over the 'nature of America' and 'what it means to be an American'. Not repelling invaders at the border, though he's a far right demagogue so that sort of rhetoric probably won't be long in coming in any campaign he's features in.
My use of military conquest was just an attempt to show a simple example of how it could happen, not that I thought it would happen or that it was even what he was talking about.
What I think is that people like Newt have this belief that secular atheist government would be too tolerant of Islam. Radical Islam could then gain more and more power and influence within the U.S. government. Either directly by gaining office or more indirectly by being allowed to get away with more and more of their agenda. They like to paint liberals as both atheist and too nice, so this was an attempt to bad mouth them on two fronts.
What Newt and his ilk fails to realize is that you don't have to be a Christian to see the evils of radical Islam, and they certainly do NOT have a monopoly on decisive action.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest, not just because he said 'atheist Muslims'. That's just the silliest, most overtly stupid thing he said. It was fundamentally dishonest on many other levels as well...but for you decided to equate critics with Fox News and suggest people were criticizing Newt unfairly.
And no, what politicians like Newt like to do isn't paint liberals as 'too nice'. That is emphatically not the rhetoric that comes out of the various far-right political camps in the current climate, much less when they start talking about secular atheist liberals.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest, not just because he said 'atheist Muslims'. That's just the silliest, most overtly stupid thing he said.
And once again, he NEVER said that. As far as I can tell, the words "atheist" and "Muslim" NEVER appear side by side. Do you have a different transcript?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest,
And no, my example was in response to this statement from Darth Mauve:
"Wing, it still sounds ridiculous to me. If any country is dominated by radical Islamists, it can no longer be a Secular Atheist country--since the main goal of radical Islamists is to create Islamic States. The first rule of an Islamic state is to believe in God as described by the Koran."
It was the simplest hypothetical I could think of at the time to explain how it might happen, though admittedly, highly unlikely.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
The whole idea that you can be a fundamentalist Muslim and an atheist at the same time is ignorance beyond sanity. Yet I've seen the same argument made by Beck, and on some Christian Radio I've listened to.
One of Mr. Gringich's points about the evil of Islam is that when one of their fanatics does something bad the rest of the Islamic community does not complain nearly as loud as they complain when non-Muslims respond harshly. The fanatics blow up some buildings--the Muslims don't say much--but if we attack the country that supported them, they scream very loud. This, he states, is proof that all Muslims are really as evil as the fanatics.
This discussion of Newt's foolish comments has been derailed by a few moderate Christians. They are not screaming about Newt's terrible logic, but about the attack non-Christians made against that logic, and by extension, against Christianity itself.
If we follow Mr. Gringrich's logic, then all Christianity must be as evil, or as foolish, as Newt himself. If we follow that logic--moderate Christians don't exist any more than moderate Muslims.
Moderate atheists do exist because they have spoken up in this thread saying the first comment was a bit rude. They have yet to speak up condemning those who responded negatively to that comment.
As atheist who hasn't participated at all, a couple of things.
1. I VERY rarely tell people I'm an atheist in real life. I am not in the closet about it, but unless it comes up, I don't go out of my way to say something. 2. You use the comments in this thread as an example of moderate atheism existing. Well of course moderate atheists exist! It's the flapping of the extremists present everywhere that drown out the fact that there are moderates present everywhere. 3. Given what's said about Muslims by politicians, I think Muslims have to put up with enough crap by simply being Muslim where they probably are sick of arguing about it after nearly a decade.* I don't blame them if no one aggressively stands up all the time. I think most people are just trying to get by without being harassed. 4. I've seen plenty of news stories about Muslims who died in September 11 etc, etc, as well as pieces that point out that the people who turned in the guys with bombs in their shoes and underwear were both relatives of the perpetrators and Muslims. But it doesn't get a lot of press because those stories fall in the "good news" category. 5. There are a lot of Muslims and a lot of diverse sets of beliefs and interest and goals. People treat Islam like a monolith, when there's a lot of X group doesn't like Y group or Z group are actually a mostly Muslim country that people don't think about because everything is fine. The fact that our politicians can't tell a very diverse group of a billion people apart is really really worrisome. Take Iran. Women have been treated like crap since the revolution, but unlike, say Afghanistan, they still get college-level educations in numbers comparable to men. 6. Islamaphobia and anti-Islamaphobia and the ignorance with respect to #5 are rather distracting issues. As an atheist and a liberal, I very very strongly believe in the freedom of religion, and I am highly annoyed at the link between Islam and terrorism and "the American way of life" crap because Newt Gingrich is suggesting that people like me are unAmerican! It is very important to me that these people aren't the target of hate they don't deserve. 7. At the same time as #6, Islam has some serious issue that I am not comfortable with (misogyny and human rights issues). I have issues with Judaism and Christianity as well, and I feel like I can discuss those as issues with the religions themselves without that additional baggage that gets tossed in with Islam.
So I think it's hard sometimes, but that's why all this stuff gets mixed up. It's also why, paradoxically, a lot of liberals are against banning veils and all that.
*When I was in Alaska in February, my companion and I got into a discussion with a crazy woman who lives in little house on the side of the road along Seward Highway about the "ground zero mosque" (she brought it up). Once we told her that we weren't concerned, she pretty much told us we were brainwashed, and all with muslims had a covert plan to infiltrate the country all with a big stupid grin on her face. Repeatedly, like a broken record. Never mind that my friend has actually read the Koran, and lived in Egypt for a summer (and majored in Middle Eastern Studies, but she didn't want to say it). Never mind that I told her I had an Iranian woman as a roommate for a year! This woman never stopped and said- "whoa, you know something I don't- what are these people really like, do they ever let their secret sinister plans slip?", she told us we needed to "educate ourselves about the truth". Both families I actually stayed with were completely not like this at all.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
But, that is NOT what he said. Here is the most complete quote I have seen:
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
To me, it sounds like he is speaking of two different threats. Secular atheists within this country AND Islamic fundamentalists from outside.
No. The problem is that he is speaking of THREE different threats and believes that 1 & 2 are a problem and cause 3.
1. Secular atheists. 2. Islamic fundamentalists 3. My grandchildren will be growing up in a different culture than the one that I grew up in.
If anything will cause #3 it will be our culture's increasing obsession with material consumption and pleasure over the needs of a people, an increase in selfishness, and cultural collapse due to economic issues exacerbated by the preferential treatment of bankers, oil and big business, the eventual collapse of ecosystems, and the inability of a large group of people to afford shelter, food and health care which is related to the above.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I agree with the idea that he's just gunning for buzzword bingo on this one. The conservative core is effortlessly riled up and made pliable by appeals to fear* involving buttons like 'secular,' 'atheist,' 'muslims,' 'islamic,' 'terror,' and the Death of Real American Culture and all that, so he's just stringing them together in a baldly utilitarian manipulation.
*sorry boys, it's true
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
No need to apologize Samp, you are dead on right except I might change the word "baldly" to "badly".
theamazeeaz, good points.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup, pretty transparent fear-mongering.
One method of which was to link secular atheists and radical Muslims, two of the 'worst' things in the eyes of far-right social and religious conservatives. I suppose they could've thrown in homosexual socialist as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They might — might — just have been clued in on the fact that continuing the No Homo war was alienating them to the great majority of voters who aren't old, and might be the second greatest way to lose tomorrow's elections behind only alienating Hispanics.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They might — might — just have been clued in on the fact that continuing the No Homo war was alienating them to the great majority of voters who aren't old, and might be the second greatest way to lose tomorrow's elections behind only alienating Hispanics.
I don't know. There is still plenty of gay bashing going on. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Newt chime in on that subject again. And of course he will probably throw in Muslims and atheists again as well.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
911 was a conspiracy, I lose some sanity points for saying it, but if you look at all the proof, it stops looking like an attack and it starts to look really intentional....
Another piece to the pie is building 7, one of the buildings near the towers when they collapsed... If you watch video's you can see building 7 explode from the inside and colapse as the towers are too.
Even more so, the jet that 'crashed' into the pentagon, was entirely vaporized, just a blackish crater... compare that to a normal plane crash and a lot of it doesn't make sense.. --- It's all was just a dynamic plot to invade the middle east, and alienate people about other religions. --- Great post theamazeeaz... --- Isn't islamic athiest and oxymoron?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So how's that week off from Hatrack going
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Another piece to the pie is building 7, one of the buildings near the towers when they collapsed... If you watch video's you can see building 7 explode from the inside and colapse as the towers are too.
Even more so, the jet that 'crashed' into the pentagon, was entirely vaporized, just a blackish crater... compare that to a normal plane crash and a lot of it doesn't make sense..
asafkdljgsdf.
1. Aluminum is a readily oxidizable metal in the same chemical family as magnesium. In extreme heat, aluminum can begin to burn (similarly to magnesium), and can even burn under water by stealing the oxygen from water, and in particularly calamitous crashes, large portions of a plane can simply be burnt to black slag. Well before 9/11 I remember seeing a picture of a more typical plane crash where pretty much nothing 'plane-like' was left but the tail, which had snapped off and fallen away from the conflagration. Everything else was just a black pit. You could just as easily have pointed to it and said 'WHERE IS THE PLANE? CONSPIRACY?'
2. Most planes don't crash in the manner that the pentagon plane did. It hammered itself straight into a building. Momentum alone is going to cause the plane's relatively soft body to mush itself up into the building. What's supposed to be recognizable, minus perhaps the engines?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In other news, it's nice to be back in 2004
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Triple post! Hatrack is addictive, if you have nothing else to do! Still a conspiracy in my eyes! ----- Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
You understand the difference between 'failed to explain' and 'didn't at this point in time explain,' right? If so: You're right, I haven't. That doesn't detract from the points I made at all, though, so .. hooray?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
This is a very dishonest method of discussion, Rawrain. You made a bunch of (frequently made, frequently rebutted, ridiculous) points, and some of them were very soundly shut down. Completely ignoring the fact that some of the issues you brought to the table were demonstrated to be incorrect, you just said, "Well what about this?"
That's not how you have a good-faith discussion. In one of those you say, "Huh, I didn't know that," or, "Never thought of it that way, good point." Not doing so is not only pretty bad form, it makes you look pretty ridiculous-and that's putting it mildly.
How about that week off from Hatrack you were going to take? It would be good for you. You said you were going to do it. I think you'll find that - and it's funny that Charlie Sheen is having his business right now too - most people around here are reaching their limits on how much time they'll waste on you, with a few exceptions.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Sam, no matter how many times you point out gramatical errors it won' answer the statement for you. - Rakeesh, off-topic, I said I would take a week off after I post a landmark, no landmark posted.
Are you "telling" me to acknowledge Sam's post as accurate, or act like he informed me on a plausibility I didn't already know about?
pentagon 'crash' site A crash site Crashed into a mountain: Helios Airways Flight 522 Crashed: Kam Air Flight 904 Crashed into mountains: West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 I find it hard to find pictures of plane crashes with similar magnitude to the pentagon crash, strange.... if you really wanna prove me wrong find those 3 pictures, if they are identical to the Pentagon crash, I will compliment Sam on how right he was about large aircrafts disintegrating. ------- Building 7 remains unchallenged. ------- The events of 911 are relivent to the topic at hand, as the initial cause of all this hub-bub. If it's proven Muslim Extremists are responsible for the events, it's one thing, but if it's proven that our government or some secret seated shadows are responsible, it's another thing entirely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You should archive these posts, Rawrain, and look at them ten years later. It'll be good for you.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh man. Really? This is hilarious.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Curiously the FBI confiscated many of the videos that would've seen the plane hit the Pentagon.
http://vimeo.com/13726978 It's pretty great to watch long, and informal! You may want to skip the whole 'history of religion' part, which basically compares religions to astrology and each other. After the 911 talk, it goes on to talk about the economy, central bank and such..
Or maybe you shouldn't watch it because I suggested so, your choice 8D
[ April 03, 2011, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have friends that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. The news cameras broadcasting from DC were on her building's roof and having stayed at their apt before, I know with the windows they have a perfect view of that part of pentagon. While we have before discussed the ability to remember things that aren't true, this apt by habit and location would have witnessed the attack and they were talking about it immediately after. I guess the government convinced all those folks to lie believably to their friends about it, which with an apt full of upstanding LDS women, believable lying would be an impressive accomplishment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's an exercise for you, Rawrain: try to disprove your OWN idea. That is, look for evidence yourself that rebuts your own suggestions (which, like many conspiracies, have the appeal to vanity that this one does: it makes you secretly wise, and other people dupes, and frees you from an obligation to become better informed).
This is a VERY well-researched topic, easily accessed online by CREDIBLE sources. See if you can do this. There's no risk, because if you're right an attempt to disprove yourself fairly will fail. If you're wrong, you've gained by shedding a wrong belief.
This is pretty much one of the easiest tests of how to be a critical thinker and good-faith participants in a discussion I've encountered in awhile. I hope, but at this point don't expect, you can do it. I rather expect some gloating about how people haven't actually showed you were wrong, and some emoticons.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have friends that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon.
Ditto.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My grandmother was on the army navy country club greens (or some other close field) playing golf next to the pentagon when the plane went right over her head.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Alright Sam wins Grandmother victory! Still curious about what the FBI gains by taking all of the video evidence from stationary cameras..
How does forensic evidence survive in temperature hot enough to melt steel...
Rakeesh it's not my idea, but it's a conspiracy theory, if it was entirely proven it would be just a conspiracy, though it's only a theory I still believe it's absolutely true, after all this country is that messed up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
My grandmother provides only an anecdotal story. It should be mostly irrelevant compared to the wealth of information available on the subject.
Popular Mechanics did a fair summary about the failures of a lot of the 9/11 truther claims.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
FBI takes cameras because those cameras give different views of what happens. Same reason why when someone is robbed at the walmart parking lot, the police collect not just the walmart parking lot videos, but also the texaco and discount tire videos that show a different angle. It gives a more thorough picture of exactly what happened.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
"His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to." "Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." The FBI was there within minutes, interesting...
http://infowars.net/pictures/may2006/170506FOIA.jpg request to see the tapes under the freedom of information act -denied ------------- If these videos show what is obvious then why does the FBI need to hold them? It's just ridiculous all of it.. the government lies lies and hides, and if you so much as try to step outside that, you will get denied... just like the whole roswell thing, you can get the papers NOW, but they are blacked out in all the sweet spots. ------------- Pop mech, and scie. are awesome magazines 8D I had a 3 year sub for one of my birthdays, some amazing stuff in both of them...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Rawrain, is there a conspiracy you don't believe?
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
No, but that's just because I only look into matters of my concern, and when I look into them I look deeply into them. The way I see it, it's either is a conspiracy or it was made to look like one. I can't think of any reason to make something look like a conspiracy so my bet is on the 1st one.
We gotta save ourselves while we can, after that everything gets out of our control...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
infowars link, take a shot
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You say you looked deeply into it. Take a look at what the infowars FOIA request was actually for vs what you said it was for (hint: it says in the letter), and then look at the reasons the request was denied (hint: the letter points you at the reasons used).
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Yet another topic I derailed....
fugu I am not seeing it .__. ---- Edt. I see it now, that's just the subject >->
[ April 04, 2011, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Rawrain ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: I can't think of any reason to make something look like a conspiracy
Your lack of imagination is astounding.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow. All that is required is for you to read what was written and you aren't able to do it.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Conspiracy theories can be fun and some are quite convincing but I have found that most come from a lack of understanding about the facts of a case.
For instance, people like to claim that Oswald couldn't have made the shot on JFK because the Italian rifle he used was one of the least accurate weapons of WWII. That second part is true; however, at that range, ANY WWII long rifle is more than accurate enough to make that shot. Anyone that knows rifles and shooting would know that the gun, while second rate, is still good enough. Anyone that doesn't know shooting hears that and says "conspiracy".
Please note, I am not interested in starting a JFK debate. Just using it as an example. If you want to spew a bunch of other theories about it, start a new thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, Rawrain, you've consistently demonstrated that you're not worth being taken seriously. Even very easy things you won't investigate, choosing instead go flatter your own vanity by believing you've 'looked deeply' into things. Despite not having shown evidence of looking beyond whatever silly preconception you started a conversation with.
I won't spend any more time taking you seriously. Enjoy being super-right, dude! Everyone else just don't look deep enough!
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
Just many unanswered simple questions that are kept secret for unknown reasons arouses suspicion in me and other people, so of course conspiracy arrives especially when people dying is involved.
I'm not taken seriously anyways, it would take a video of a plane NOT crashing into the pentagon to convince you guys otherwise, and of course let's see someone get them >__>
And no one ever answered the question about Islamic Atheists being an oxymoron...
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: And no one ever answered the question about Islamic Atheists being an oxymoron...
That was already addressed in this thread before you brought it up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: And no one ever answered the question about Islamic Atheists being an oxymoron...
You know, if you're this desperate, you should probably just light up a neon sign that says "i am trying to distract you towards something else now"
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That's dumb, even for him.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)