The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Drug smugglers are in my opinion the only underclass of heathen who come close to deserving the death penalty and/or compulsory sterilisation, and the latter penalty should also be avaliable for alcoholics.
I hardly have any sympathy for drug smugglers and consumers who are awarded the death penalty, although I do for virtually all other classes of criminals who are.

Cory has a sock?

Cory wouldn't use the word 'heathen' as a term of abuse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But, Scott, there is a neopagan, pantheist variant of liberal Christianity, and it's a real problem in several of the mainline churches.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But, Scott, there is a neopagan, pantheist variant of liberal Christianity, and it's a real problem in several of the mainline churches.

I'm not familiar with any liberal churches that could be considered neopagan or pantheistic (are you sure you don't mean panenetheistic?).  And even assuming those churches do exist, I had interpreted Cathcon's post as a label on all liberal mainline churches, which I would obviously resent.

He's probably referring to John Spong and a couple other theologians along the same vein, not any particular church. Although there are a couple syncretistic sects that combined Christian theology with a sort of pantheism, but I've never heard of them being considered mainline.

Yeah Scott, I thought he was referring to Spong and his ilk.

If that is the case, then I apologize for interpreting that as a broad attack on liberal Christianity.

I can't speak for Cathcon but yes, that's what I meant. Of course I wouldn't mount a broad attack on the liberal mainline churches as a whole, since I'm a communicant of one--hence it's a real problem 'in' several of the mainline churches, not 'with' them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Children ought to have a better upbringing than under a tribal Roma or Irish Traveller family.
The lack of concern among many families for the educational development of their children is a horrific indication of a backward culture which must modernise.

Is there anything specific about my post that irks you?

Mostly the racism and the implication that children of certain ethnic groups should be removed from their families.

The operative word is "tribal", which hifly15 intended to use to refer to Gypsies and Travellers who practice the nomadic lifestyle, I presume he has no objections to settled populations.

That...really doesn't make it much better. The phrase 'backward culture which must modernize' is just awful.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

When there are free and sufficient educational facilities available for your children and you refuse to allow them to take part in it then you are a backward people. Kids dont deserve that in the 21st century. This principle also applies to non-Roma families who practice this.
That includes the Amish.

So does this include homeschoolers (for example), or just families from ethnic and religious groups of which you disapprove?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not that we're unconcerned about the children's education, it's that we're also concerned about the cultures' ways of life and don't think that you--or any of us, really--are in any position whatsoever to categorically define those ways of life as 'backward'. One might say that groups like the Roma and the Travellers ought to ensure that their children have access to the educational resources of the broader culture and advocate for policies to make that possible, without forcing these groups to change their cultures more than is necessary to accomplish whatever standard of access is set (and certainly without forcing them to abandon the traditional manners in which they do educate their children). That's a reasonable, not inherently racist or culturally supremacist position to take. But that is not how policy towards these groups has historically generally worked.

I don't really think it's worth getting into how you say 'religious education doesn't count' immediately after specifically including the Amish, who raise their children the way they do because of their nature as a religious group.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Then it's simply a man.

If 'it' is a man then why are you using the pronoun for inanimate objects and animals whose gender isn't known or relevant?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Noted expert on human cultural diversity Peeperkorn weighs in on a country that he's probably never been to:

Japan: Manga, Anime and total lack of human empathy.

Snowstalker's reasons for disliking Japan stated in the same thread are good, relevant, and well-thought-out by comparison.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Noted expert on human cultural diversity Peeperkorn weighs in on a country that he's probably never been to:

Japan: Manga, Anime and total lack of human empathy.

Snowstalker's reasons for disliking Japan stated in the same thread are good, relevant, and well-thought-out by comparison.

But I LIKE Japan.

And Snowstalker's reasons for disliking it are good, relevant, and well-thought-out by comparison.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Presented without comment.

Anyway I wish we lived in a society where the wealthy had more children and the desperately poor used abortion to limit their numbers.  Instead it is the other way round.  Not sure what is noble about a society of rich people who limit the number of children they have so they can indulge themselves and poor people who spit out hordes of children because ph-cking is their only entertainment and they don't give a rat's @$$ about the miserable future their children are going to have.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anybody who can overcome their childhood religious abuse is a major FF in my book. Much less so, if it's to join a different sect though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm honestly not even sure where to begin addressing this.

I don't really see how that excerpt makes her inherently some kind of bigot. She states that she believes peace-loving Muslims exist but that political Islam is currently in control of the religion as a whole.

If there are Westerners who are bigoted against Muslims, you can't say there aren't many Muslims who have done nothing to alleviate that. There are a lot of Americans who have never met a Muslim in their life. They don't know any. The only exposure they have had to Islam is having their country attacked by Muslims on 9/11. Does that mean all Muslims supported that? Of course not.

But the problem with Islam is that even though it's oversimplifying to say they're all monolithically jihadists, they made the choice to structure their religion in such a way that it's next to impossible to culturally and socially target the "bad" Muslims without targeting the "good" ones as well.

Christianity has very clear subdivisions and denominations, most of which are very hierarchical. That's why when a Catholic priest rapes a choir boy, people don't get mad at Christians in general. They get mad at Catholics. That dividing line is there. When a fundamentalist megachurch pastor embezzles his congregants' money and buys drugs and prostitutes, it's not a problem with Christianity, but rather with evangelical Christianity or specifically with that church.

My advice to the moderate Muslims who don't want to have a violent clash of civilizations with the West, who believe God gave us both faith and reason to guide us, and who don't adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Koran is this - stop calling yourselves Muslims. When Catholics couldn't agree on how people should be baptized and which bishop would have final say over church affairs, some of them stopped calling themselves Catholics. And that is where we got the Eastern Orthodox Church. When some Anglicans become disillusioned with strict High Church tradition and wanted to incorporate the teachings of John Wesley into their doctrine, they stopped calling themselves Anglicans and started calling themselves Methodists.

But to the extent that that has not happened, and the "bad" Muslims are very much in the driver's seat, I honestly don't think what Ms. Ali is saying is bigoted or hateful. It's simply the reality in which we live.

I happen to agree with Ms. Ali's overall assertion that Islam as a whole has a net negative influence on the world currently. That hasn't always been the case - we have things like algebra to remind us of that. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that there is only one religion in the world that is currently producing the lion's share of terror attacks; there is only one religion in the world that has a significant share of its members more or less declaring open warfare on the rest of us. And that religion is Islam. There is no moral equivalency between Islamic jihad and the crazy rantings of fundie Christians like Michele Bachmann who don't actually do anything to harm people who don't share their views. I'm sorry if you think making the judgment, with evidence in my favor, that Islam is a "bad" religion somehow makes me a bigot. At least I don't serve as an apologist for terrorists and misogynists for the sake of being politically correct.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In answer to a question about the most important turning point in human history. Emphasis mine.

Philosophically, I was going to say the paradigm shift that was the reinvention of knowledge - i.e., Baconian thought, but of the two, certainly the Enlightenment. No one ever actually rose from the dead anyway, and if they did I would like to talk to them. I would also like to know how it affected anyone other than the person who rose from the dead.

From a more concrete standpoint I might say the moon landing. At least, that's the first thing that comes to mind, but if I were to think about it I might come up with something else.

Not so much bad (in anything remotely resembling an objective sense; subjectively I of course disagree but that's not the same thing), admittedly, as absurd terminologically.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nice group picture... But who are they?

It does indicate ignorance, but I don't see the absurdity or bad posting in it. I myself have no idea who those (likely awful) people are.

I'll forgive you for most of the Scandinavian PMs but Brandt, Wilson and Palme are clearly visible and that level of ignorance can't be that far off not recognising a photo of Mitterand.

Most Americans, probably even most Americans who know who Brandt, Wilson, Palme, and Mitterrand are, wouldn't recognize a photo of them. I recognize Wilson and Mitterrand on sight, but Brandt only at certain angles and Palme only because he's been in Antonio's signature for a while now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Metal either sounds like someone mowing the lawn or some little kid throwing a temper tantrum by banging on silverware.

You misspelled 'emoviolence'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Metal either sounds like someone mowing the lawn or some little kid throwing a temper tantrum by banging on silverware.

You misspelled 'emoviolence'.

Girls, girls, let me solve this: both suck.

As a whole I agree, but I've heard some good metal here and there. I've never heard good emoviolence.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SicJqAY7mTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCqG2Lf2KL8

The first isn't bad, but it still isn't good either. The second is awful.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Note the first sentence of opebo's response to traininthedistance here in conjunction with the last five words:

Its not the same thing, friend!  In the male case his parts work, he just can't get what he wants.

The parts usually work in the female case, too- they just have incompetents for a mate.

You're displaying awful sexism, train.  Apparently you assume the woman is such a fainting weak flower that she can't simply tell her man what to do.  Nonsense.  I can tell you from experience only a large minority of women can o****m properly (that is vag*****y).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Good at sex" makes no sense. It's like saying someone is good at eating.

You're so caught up in your prudery and clitorocentrism that you can't see anything clearly.

I'm fantastic at eating - I'm a gastronome.  Most people are bad at it. 

Somebody who claims that only a 'vaginal orgasm' is 'proper' because he doesn't want to go to the trouble of stimulating his partner's clitoris has no standing to talk to anybody else about anything-'centrism'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There is no proper way to eat, opebo. Whether you shove it in your mouth or up your ass doesn't matter. The point is whether or not you absorbed the nutrition.

You're a sad Philistine, Tik.  If you think the point is absorbing the nutrients, there's no point in talking to you.

Somebody who claims that only a 'vaginal orgasm' is 'proper' because he doesn't want to go to the trouble of stimulating his partner's clitoris has no standing to talk to anybody else about anything-'centrism'.

Its not about 'going to the trouble', trans.  You're not understanding me at all.  Its about having a satisfying mutual experience.   For example - I also don't much care for bjs.

No, it's clearly just about what you want, cishet. It always is with you.

Tip: If only a 'large minority' of women are capable of a certain type of sex, then saying that that is what is 'proper' makes absolutely no sense at all unless you see women's sexuality as existing essentially for the benefit of your own minimal-effort orgasms and sexual compromise or mutual sacrifice as somehow insulting to you. It was clear from long before this subject was brought up that you're an unrepentant misogynist who doesn't care at all about forming or maintaining a human connection with his partners and makes a habit of bribing desperate women to let him go to town on them, so I'm not sure why you're going to such pains to disguise any of this now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure that Smith very much did impose a South Africa-style apartheid system...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure that Smith very much did impose a South Africa-style apartheid system...

He didn't. What was in place was not South Africa style.

I guess that could, technically, be true, depending entirely on how you define 'South Africa-style', but it was obviously apartheid or comparable to apartheid.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure that Smith very much did impose a South Africa-style apartheid system...

He didn't. What was in place was not South Africa style.

I guess that could, technically, be true, depending entirely on how you define 'South Africa-style', but it was obviously apartheid or comparable to apartheid.

I don't think so. Aparthied as a system is inseparable from the cultural insecurities of the Afrikaners (the government's that imposed the apartheid system were made up entirely of Afrikaners) that had built up over the decades leading up to the election of the National Party to power in 1948. Whilst you could say the aim of apartheid and the Rhodesian system of minority rule were similar, they were highly different in practice. Apartheid, as the name suggests, was designed to totally separate blacks from whites (though this often failed to work out in practice). Under the Rhodesian system, it was theoretically possible (though practically impossible) for a black man to become Prime Minister, as I believe they were entitled to representation in the Rhodesian Parliament, quite unlike South Africa. So, yes, the situation in Rhodesia was certainly far from ideal, but it was a hell of a lot better than the one in South Africa.

Eh, I did some more research and you're at least partially right about this, but I think Al's statement that it was part of the same general spectrum of systems as apartheid stands.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

HP even if he made England Protestant

That's a strike against him.

Thats a valid opinion, hardly absurd or ignorant in any  way.

But Snowstalker isn't Catholic. He just constantly extols its superiority for...reasons that I have yet to really hear, even though the Church of England is far more liberal than the Catholic Church and thus closer to his views.

It's because I find the liberal Protestant circlejerk on this forum (particularly your "hipster Christianity") annoying and feel the need to toy with it

Right, because what we need is more jmfcst Christcons like on every other forum.

That's exactly what we need. The Religion board consist almost entirely of liberal Protestants and Dawkinsite atheists.

Personally I think we need more religious people who aren't Christian. Now that would really shake Religion and Philosophy up a bit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.