Christian racism...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 11:17 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  There is no number, it's all about what benefits society as a whole. For example the UN has told Iran that they will build them a nuclear power plant, but not the kind that they can use to create weapons of mass destruction. Not surprisingly Iran refused, despite how a power plant would benefit the people of the country. The reason we said no is because of the imminent threat that Iran poses should they get these kind of weapons. So for Iran to cry that the US won't let them have a gun because they have openly admitted that they are going to shoot someone, is placing sanctions on Iran a means by which we can justify an end (in this case not having a nuclear holocaust)? I think so. So what if a group of leaders in the country want to cry because we won't give them what they want, it doesn't benefit society, actually it does the exact opposite. So if you want to put a number on it, let's say when 99% of the world is looking out for their own safety because some dangerous psychopath wants to commit nuclear annihilation, then the 1% is just going to have to cry about it.
And who gets to decide that society benefits as a whole? We can't ask society, because it's just a concept. There are only individual people and for every person who perceives benefit from violence, there is at least one who suffers from it. So do you get to decide? If so, why not me?

As for enforcing sanctions on Iran, who benefits there? Do you really have to starve Iranian children just to keep from building a power plant? No one should have any qualms with the individual Iranian people, because it is the people who call themselves the Iranian government who're planning to build these nuclear weapons and, they aren't doing so in retaliation against me, because they don't even know me. Rather, their retaliation is planned against the people who call themselves the US government. I can't speak for you but I make it a point not to talk about those people as "we". I have nothing to do with their predations.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 11:39 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 11:17 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  There is no number, it's all about what benefits society as a whole. For example the UN has told Iran that they will build them a nuclear power plant, but not the kind that they can use to create weapons of mass destruction. Not surprisingly Iran refused, despite how a power plant would benefit the people of the country. The reason we said no is because of the imminent threat that Iran poses should they get these kind of weapons. So for Iran to cry that the US won't let them have a gun because they have openly admitted that they are going to shoot someone, is placing sanctions on Iran a means by which we can justify an end (in this case not having a nuclear holocaust)? I think so. So what if a group of leaders in the country want to cry because we won't give them what they want, it doesn't benefit society, actually it does the exact opposite. So if you want to put a number on it, let's say when 99% of the world is looking out for their own safety because some dangerous psychopath wants to commit nuclear annihilation, then the 1% is just going to have to cry about it.
And who gets to decide that society benefits as a whole? We can't ask society, because it's just a concept. There are only individual people and for every person who perceives benefit from violence, there is at least one who suffers from it. So do you get to decide? If so, why not me?

As for enforcing sanctions on Iran, who benefits there? Do you really have to starve Iranian children just to keep from building a power plant? No one should have any qualms with the individual Iranian people, because it is the people who call themselves the Iranian government who're planning to build these nuclear weapons and, they aren't doing so in retaliation against me, because they don't even know me. Rather, their retaliation is planned against the people who call themselves the US government. I can't speak for you but I make it a point not to talk about those people as "we". I have nothing to do with their predations.
The real question is why are Iranian children starving in the first place? If the Iranian government were more concerned about the welfare of their people then their crusade, then they wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Also, yes you can ask society, because society dictates it's own policy. In most states in the US, the death penalty is outlawed, despite how an individual may feel about it. This was a society driven decision, not an individual driven decision.

If getting people to reconsider their opinions and beliefs makes for a progressive and more humane society, then it and only then does the end justify the means. It's not the Iranian people I have a problem with, as I mentioned in my statement about obtaining nuclear weapons is the goal of the leadership. Otherwise I would advocate the invasion and demolition of the Iranian state, but I haven't. It doesn't matter whether they know you or not, they don't care. When a bomb goes off it kills whoever it effects and as 9/11 shows us, people with intent to do harm do not care whether it's the government or Joe Schmo who sells hotdogs down the street.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 12:01 PM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  The real question is why are Iranian children starving in the first place? If the Iranian government were more concerned about the welfare of their people then their crusade, then they wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Also, yes you can ask society, because society dictates it's own policy. In most states in the US, the death penalty is outlawed, despite how an individual may feel about it. This was a society driven decision, not an individual driven decision.

If getting people to reconsider their opinions and beliefs makes for a progressive and more humane society, then it and only then does the end justify the means. It's not the Iranian people I have a problem with, as I mentioned in my statement about obtaining nuclear weapons is the goal of the leadership. Otherwise I would advocate the invasion and demolition of the Iranian state, but I haven't. It doesn't matter whether they know you or not, they don't care. When a bomb goes off it kills whoever it effects and as 9/11 shows us, people with intent to do harm do not care whether it's the government or Joe Schmo who sells hotdogs down the street.
The reason Iranian children are starving is that trade sanctions don't affect rulers like they do children and poor people. The Iranian rulers with whom the US rulers are having a cock measuring contest with can afford food and shelter regardless of sanctions but the poor cannot. This is what happened in Iraq and there was no net benefit to anyone. In fact, it could very easily be argued that the Iraqi trade sanctions of the 90's helped to precipitate the 9/11 attack on the US.

I'm also interested how you square this circle that you call society makes its own decisions. Do you think society wanted the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, 1000+ military bases scattered all over the world and the myriad other destructive legislative schemes that consistently poll with far less than half of interviewees approval? Did you get a call to vote on SOPA recently? I know I didn't, but perhaps I missed it.

I'm happy to debate just about anything with anyone but if we're going to have a discussion, let's please agree to keep it within the bounds of truth. That truth being that in a representative democracy, which is the US political structure, society writ large does not make the decisions. People place bets every two, four or six years on who will win and once the winner is called, that person along with a small group of people like him or her decide legislation.... not what you call society. We can argue for or against that setup but surely we can at least agree that it works the way we see it working every day. Because honestly, if I'm debating with someone who believes that the majority of US citizens actually make the rules, I might just as well argue about the existence of gods with a theist.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 07:17 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 02:07 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  You mean the way they have stereotyped atheist as people who just want to piss in everyone's cereal? Why am I supposed to play by a different set of rules? Why do I have to play their game? Sure, I don't think ALL Christians are racist, but then again I did clarify a few posts later that I'm talking about "Christians" (using the air quotes). I don't care if people think I'm a prick as long as I'm being sincere. If the "Christians" can badger on and make assumptions and stereotype people they see as a threat, then so can I... it's called equality. I'm not going to walk into a gun fight with a knife.
It's called taking the high road and being the better person. I'm just like Seth. I'm not into the whole "angry atheist" thing. Why should I get angry. All anger does is stress me out and make my anxiety go haywire. I have more important things in my life to worry about. And I have friends and family that I love very much and %95 of them are Christian. And I love them with all my heart and they do not put my down one bit.


(16-03-2013 10:31 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Actually I was an Obama supporter throughout the first election. I agree with his ideas, but not because I personally think they are good ideas, but because I feel they will be beneficial to society as a whole. However, after examining his healthcare plan, I see the fundamental flaws in it's design and no longer feel it is what is best for the country. I'm looking at the bigger picture, what I feel is right or wrong is only a matter of my perception. If I were against stem cell research (which I'm not, but let's just go with it) then it wouldn't matter as long as society benefits.

In essence there is no difference between political standpoints because the goal is exactly the same. It's just by which method we get to the finish line that we disagree on. The reason we have political tensions is because we have allowed for personal issues to become a political issue, when the real job of our officials is to discuss and debate what policies will lead us to a more progressive and more beneficial society.
Obama is a dick and a Progressive and he Never got my vote ever.
If you want to study some history that matters to this country. Study the real history of the progressive party that has their roots based in communism.
I'm a big history buff but the shit that you are bringing up was different time and it's in the past.
You can't change the past you can only make the future better.

Now you can just keep your angry, progressiveness on the other side of the NJ/PA line. Of course if I wanted to be stereotypical I could say lots of bad, nasty stereotypical things about Jersey people. But I'm not like that. Plus some of my best friends live in Jersey.

My suggestion is take a really big chill pill. And the first warm Spring day go to the beach, put your bare feet in the nice warm sand and just breath. And just let the stress roll off your body like a wave.

[Image: i-Jn5RHZ7-S.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 11:00 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 07:17 PM)smidgen Wrote:  Obama is a dick and a Progressive and he Never got my vote ever.
If you want to study some history that matters to this country. Study the real history of the progressive party that has their roots based in communism.
I'm a big history buff but the shit that you are bringing up was different time and it's in the past.
You can't change the past you can only make the future better.

Now you can just keep your angry, progressiveness on the other side of the NJ/PA line. Of course if I wanted to be stereotypical I could say lots of bad, nasty stereotypical things about Jersey people. But I'm not like that. Plus some of my best friends live in Jersey.

My suggestion is take a really big chill pill. And the first warm Spring day go to the beach, put your bare feet in the nice warm sand and just breath. And just let the stress roll off your body like a wave.

"The progressive party has it roots in communism"? Not only is that untrue, but it's an example of the genetic fallacy even if it was. The progressive party has it roots in Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. The irrational policy against the spread of communism has it roots in progressivism, which is mutually exclusive to your theory. Perhaps before demanding that others do their research, you ought to do it (instead of getting your views from people who are biased against it).

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 11:07 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 09:35 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Right and wrong are irrelevant in a war of ideas. It's not wrong for a (and I'll say again) "Christian" ministry leader to play upon the insecurity people have and promote their brand of thinking in order to sell them their beliefs. Just like it's not wrong for a lawyer to portray a murderer as a threat to society. Therefore if I have to play devil's advocate and launch an emotional battering ram in order to break the wall of ignorance, then I am justified in doing so.

As for being "overly aggressive" as you put it, watch this and tell me if I'm being overly aggressive or just returning shot for shot...

Instead of defending your arguments as "right", you argue that the concepts of "right and wrong" are inapplicable in your case? That's perhaps the most cognitively dissonant attempt at special pleading that I've ever heard. It blows my mind that someone could actually type that and not realize how far they've reached to avoid tarnishing their ego.

Please don't make an emotional appeal by showing me what some theists do, hoping that I'll blame all theists for it. Direct your blame at the ones responsible, as I and other rational people do. It's only fair. I can only hope that no theist will lash out at me for the things that you say about them (simply because we're both atheists), and it would be wrong if they did.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 06:15 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 07:06 AM by DeathsNotoriousAngel.)
RE: Christian racism...
I was having issues with getting everything to post correctly so I decided to respond as such:

bbeljefe- You missed my point about the Iranian leaders taking care of their own. You can't expect the US to feed and provide for the people of Iran, their leaders have to do that themselves. Which obviously they are not and I agree with your position on Iraq, it was in the end pretty pointless. I'm speaking more on a local level. The US government seems to have the authority to do whatever the hell they want to, I'll agree with you there, but informed citizens can voice their opinions on a city or state level and usually see results. Yes, I got a notice for SOPA in my inbox.

smidgen- Please note the fact that I corrected myself in further post from my original that I am talking about "Christians" (people claim faith, but their actions defy their message). I have nothing against a true follower of the faith, like you some of my closest friends are believers. I think it's perfectly acceptable to get angry when these "Christians" begin spinning their hate fueled speech. You may be like Seth and that's perfectly fine, but I prefer to be more like Hitchens. Every yin needs a yang and I refuse to be belittled anymore for not believing in someone's mass delusion.
Also, I'm not from NJ, I just live here. Yes, you can't change the past and I don't even expect an apology for the misdeeds of the past, but there comes a time when you recognize them so as to ensure they never happen again. That's a lesson I've learned from discussion from some of the Jewish tenants of my area, which I must say is very enlightening.

Starcrash- As I noted above, in later post I corrected myself and made clear that I am talking about "Christians" (people claim faith, but their actions defy their message). I'm not pleading for anything, I'm making my position perfectly clear. If you don't want to take the debate to the forefront, then that is your decision and you have by all means the right to maintain that position. However, I on the other hand am tired of sitting back and watching while people like Pat Robertson gets to spew his insane garbage into the ears of my countrymen. Right and wrong are simply a matter of perspective, unless you are suggesting that there is an "absolute morality". The things I oppose are those which do not make for a more progressive and humane society. So I'm not concerned about whether a church has a bake sale or hosts a summer event for children, these things don't concern me because they are not leading to the degradation of anyone ( with maybe the exception of the famed "Jesus Camp", but that's a whole other story).

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(17-03-2013 06:15 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Starcrash- As I noted above, in later post I corrected myself and made clear that I am talking about "Christians" (people claim faith, but their actions defy their message). I'm not pleading for anything, I'm making my position perfectly clear. If you don't want to take the debate to the forefront, then that is your decision and you have by all means the right to maintain that position. However, I on the other hand am tired of sitting back and watching while people like Pat Robertson gets to spew his insane garbage into the ears of my countrymen. Right and wrong are simply a matter of perspective, unless you are suggesting that there is an "absolute morality". The things I oppose are those which do not make for a more progressive and humane society. So I'm not concerned about whether a church has a bake sale or hosts a summer event for children, these things don't concern me because they are not leading to the degradation of anyone ( with maybe the exception of the famed "Jesus Camp", but that's a whole other story).

Your definition of "Christians" still doesn't make you unprejudiced -- it just means that you're prejudiced against a smaller group of people. Even "people [who] claim faith, but [whose] actions defy their message" are not, as a whole, guilty of the things of which you're accusing them.

And if you're not familiar with special pleading, then you ought to look it up. It doesn't mean or suggest that you were making your position unclear, and so your position could be perfectly clear and you could still be pleading that your particular case should get special treatment as being exempt from judged right or wrong. Your further attempt to minimize the ideas of "right and wrong" by asserting that they are a matter of perspective is easily answered by giving you perspective: they are "logically wrong". Double-standards (special pleading) are a logical fallacy, as is prejudice and stereotyping (hasty generalization).

And I do in fact "take the debate to the forefront", but in response to the actual people making these actual errors (such as in comments to their blogs and videos). To attack Christians in general isn't very effective, because Christians who don't identify with the things said about them will ignore the rest of what's being said. Unless by taking the debate to the forefront you're suggesting something as irrational as vigilantism or terrorism... in which case, what did you think was so wrong about the KKK? Surely you don't seem to have a problem with their approach against the people that they are prejudiced against. Was your problem with them simply the target of their prejudice?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(17-03-2013 06:15 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  I was having issues with getting everything to post correctly so I decided to respond as such:

bbeljefe- You missed my point about the Iranian leaders taking care of their own. You can't expect the US to feed and provide for the people of Iran, their leaders have to do that themselves. Which obviously they are not and I agree with your position on Iraq, it was in the end pretty pointless. I'm speaking more on a local level. The US government seems to have the authority to do whatever the hell they want to, I'll agree with you there, but informed citizens can voice their opinions on a city or state level and usually see results. Yes, I got a notice for SOPA in my inbox.
You missed my point about Iran. Trade sanctions make it impossible for the people in the sanctioned country to: a) sell their products abroad b) purchase products from abroad. When this happens, the sanction country's economy depresses and people become poor. Poor people can't afford food, especially when the people in government are tyrannical and/or dictatorial. Of course, you can argue that there would be no sanctions if the leaders of Iran weren't prone to attacking other countries and you'd be correct. But... those leaders consider their attacks to be defensive. And frankly, they're correct. After all, how many Iranian military bases are in the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, et al? How many North Korean military bases are in those countries? How many Chinese military bases? In the end, when government officials between countries have these dick measuring contests, it is the poor, innocent and helpless who suffer the most.

And, you're trying to move the goalposts. We weren't discussing local government, we were discussing federal government. Affecting a change in the zoning law on your block has nothing to do with Barack Obama or George Bush sending young men and women over seas to murder and be murdered. Moreover, you got a letter about SOPA, most likely from a politician who's a member of the same party you're registered with. You weren't given a vote.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 01:55 PM
RE: Christian racism...
(17-03-2013 12:23 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 06:15 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  I was having issues with getting everything to post correctly so I decided to respond as such:

bbeljefe- You missed my point about the Iranian leaders taking care of their own. You can't expect the US to feed and provide for the people of Iran, their leaders have to do that themselves. Which obviously they are not and I agree with your position on Iraq, it was in the end pretty pointless. I'm speaking more on a local level. The US government seems to have the authority to do whatever the hell they want to, I'll agree with you there, but informed citizens can voice their opinions on a city or state level and usually see results. Yes, I got a notice for SOPA in my inbox.
You missed my point about Iran. Trade sanctions make it impossible for the people in the sanctioned country to: a) sell their products abroad b) purchase products from abroad. When this happens, the sanction country's economy depresses and people become poor. Poor people can't afford food, especially when the people in government are tyrannical and/or dictatorial. Of course, you can argue that there would be no sanctions if the leaders of Iran weren't prone to attacking other countries and you'd be correct. But... those leaders consider their attacks to be defensive. And frankly, they're correct. After all, how many Iranian military bases are in the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, et al? How many North Korean military bases are in those countries? How many Chinese military bases? In the end, when government officials between countries have these dick measuring contests, it is the poor, innocent and helpless who suffer the most.

And, you're trying to move the goalposts. We weren't discussing local government, we were discussing federal government. Affecting a change in the zoning law on your block has nothing to do with Barack Obama or George Bush sending young men and women over seas to murder and be murdered. Moreover, you got a letter about SOPA, most likely from a politician who's a member of the same party you're registered with. You weren't given a vote.
Just for the record my friend, China does not have sanctions against Iran, in fact they do business with the country quite often. It's one of the main reasons why the US hasn't initiated conflict with Iran. Also, I'm not registered with any political party at the moment. The email about SOPA came from it's opposition as a newsletter because I signed their petition.

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: