| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/31/2012 01:43:23 AM · #226 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
"Full to the brim" |
"Amphigory" |
Everything is nonsensical to those who know all. May you continue to enlighten us all with your vast wisdom and knowelge. |
Ridiculing me doesn't prove any useful point, but I do hope you're enjoying it.
And what I have is knowledge, not knowelge.. At least spell things correctly when you're trying to ridicule someone's intelligence.
..
Funny enough, this is yet another great illustration of the typical response of the believer, ridicule those who disagree. I've ran across this multiple times, and it seems to be a pretty common theme here, where my opponents in the argument have attempted to turn the argument to me and my faults rather than the faults that I am attempting to discuss with them.
I would suggest ridiculing those who say they are of your faith, but follow little of the teachings of Christ first, as they are more deserving.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 01:48:40. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:09:27 AM · #227 |
Just to make it clear, I feel that I have given a sufficient demonstration of my ability to respond well, and that the effectiveness of personal attacks is quite limited, furthermore you can clearly see that bad debate behavior is something I can call out with ease, and I am not easily fooled by red herrings or other attempts to derail this debate.
However, to save my sanity and my keyboard, from this point forward in this thread, if you engage in any one of the list of acts at the end of this post, I will simply respond to you with a link to this post and expect that you will take steps to engage in a reasonable discussion, or that you will accept my refusal to continue to have a one-sided debate where I'm answering all the questions, and getting no answers, frankly you should be ashamed of yourselves at this point.
I expect answers to all of the questions posed from this point forward, and I also expect you to not attempt to take things out of context or misattribute things to me which I have not said.
Since I have now had to post this link more than once, I figure it's time that I start to live by what I advocate - you are a part of a group that I am a part of (/rant forum users), and as such it is my responsibility to hold you to the standards I expect of you. The only real recourse I have is to give you the digital equivalence of a shunning by simply pointing you to this post until you are able to engage in this conversation in a manner befitting rational adults who wish to have a productive conversation.
I look forward to continuing this conversation, if anyone has something of value to say, but I am absolutely going to enforce good debate behavior, through my own responses to that behavior, and if you don't like it, that's simply too bad. Perhaps you can learn a small lesson in controlling your group from my example here.
Partial list of bad debate tactics and behaviors that won't garner a further response from me in this thread:
-Misattributions
-Partial answers to my posts
-Personal Attacks
-Ridicule
-Failure to read or comprehend previous posts
-Vague statements and other forms of Amphigory"
-Quotes from Scripture
(this is not a complete list of reasons why I might not respond, if that is the case I will accompany the link to this post with a short explanation of my reason for pointing you to this post)
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 02:42:45. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:21:15 AM · #228 |
Excellent demonstration of your ability to respond Cory.
For what it's worth I'm certainly not a believer and you are certainly not a victim.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:26:41 AM · #229 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Excellent demonstration of your ability to respond Cory.
For what it's worth I'm certainly not a believer and you are certainly not a victim. |
:) Hope you mean that, as you are one of the DPC'ers I really do admire.
I suppose I was quite incorrect in attributing you to believer status, my apologies, yet it still stands as a rather good example of the type of response that is sometimes gotten. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 02:29:13. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:29:11 AM · #230 |
This has gone so far from the question of a New Mexico wedding photographer's right to turn down a job, you can't even see it from here.
Cory, when you have to delineate at length the basis on which you will continue an argument, you have to consider that it might be time to walk away from the argument; however just because you are a fellow DPCer, I do not feel I have the right to control your response. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:31:31 AM · #231 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
This has gone so far from the question of a New Mexico wedding photographer's right to turn down a job, you can't even see it from here.
Cory, when you have to delineate at length the basis on which you will continue an argument, you have to consider that it might be time to walk away from the argument; however just because you are a fellow DPCer, I do not feel I have the right to control your response. |
Didn't Pam say that when she moved the thread to /rant?
*shrug*
You're probably right, although I'm considering just starting my /rant posting sprees with that from now on.
I don't want to control anyone's response, I just want their response to follow an already well accepted set of rules that exist around the process of debating a topic. I don't feel that that is too much to ask, and since we lack a moderator, I suppose that's about the best thing I can come up with.
Besides, where's the fun in quitting before you've actually beaten the dead horse to a rather fine and misty pulp? ;)
And for the record, I really don't think talking about keeping the homophobic hate spewing people who call themselves Christians in check is too far off topic in the end.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 02:39:36. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:37:55 AM · #232 |
| I've just realized what the C in DPC stands for, it all fits now :) |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:40:04 AM · #233 |
ETA: I will respond to just observe how sad I think it is that by insisting on a reasonable conversation, you think I have somehow declared myself king of DPC. I suppose this is yet another reason that I'm being unrealistic when I suggest that Christians should hold each other accountable.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 03:33:05. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 10:52:05 AM · #234 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I have somehow declared myself king of DPC. |
All hail King Cory! - In the words of John Wayne, truly he was the King of the Atheists. (Or was that 'the son of god'? I can never remember)
Either way, I loved that film too, but I find it slightly disturbing that some people still believe that stuff really happened. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 01:43:07 PM · #235 |
Here is a coherent objection to your position. Feel free to respond and I'll even let others pass judgement on whether your argument passes muster.
1) Adherents.com lists a figure of 2.1 billion Christians in the world. This is roughly 30% of the population and the breadth of specific tradition and width of devotion is immense. The number represents people ranging from those who merely self-identify because of their family background or country of origin to those who’s life is shaped and centered upon their religion. It would be difficult to list another people group as uniquely large as this one. Obvious difficulties exist in stereotyping individuals within such an immense group. It would be similarly futile to characterize people merely as being “Chinese” (1.3 billion) or “Indian” (1.2 billion).
2) There is no centralized system of governance. The closest would be the Roman Catholic Church, but even this only presides over a fraction of the Christians in the world.
3) There is no ability to limit the use of the term “Christian”. Even with a centralized system of governance, it would be helpless to govern someone who doesn’t recognize their authority but still chooses to use the name “Christian”. Legal challenges have been attempted (no doubt in part by faithful Christians) and have failed as the Supreme Court has defended WBC’s right to their activity.
4) Westboro Baptist, according to Wikipedia, had 40 members in 2011. That represents .00000019% of the membership of the group “Christian”. In other words for every member of Westboro there are 5.2 million Christians who are not members of Westboro.
5) A direct correlary between this case and your own self-identified group of “scientist” would be exampled by Andrew Wakefield, the scientist who championed the link between autism and vaccines. His work as a scientist has done irreparable harm to the community. His paper was released in 1998. You might correctly point out that he was discredited and renounced by scientists in 2010, twelve years later, but nothing prevents him from still calling himself a scientist, from continuing research if he can find like-minded doners, or from doing anything that would generally be considered “scientific”. Wakefield himself did not accept the “ruling” that his paper was a hoax. Websites still exist championing his position that there is a relationship. What has been done is the limit of what is able to be done and is no more than the renunciation of Christian churches concerning Westboro. To quote Wikipedia again, “The WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations and the two largest Baptist denominations, the Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention have denounced the WBC over the years.” In other words, the governing bodies that might be most closely associated with WBC have denounced him. There is zero complicity.
So, to prove your case that Christians personally bear responsibility for Westboro you will have to show:
1) It is reasonable to be hold an individual member accountable for actions of 1 member per 5.2 million adherents. Examples of similar expectations within other groups should be provided.
2) There are practical and effective methods available to the average Christian to stop such actions.
3) Examples of such practical and effective methods are seen in other groups, specifically the one you self-identify with: “scientist”.
I suspect those who happen to be reading will feel you have not proven your case.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 13:44:04. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:08:54 PM · #236 |
First, let me thank you for your excellent response, it is appreciated, and facilitates a good debate.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is a coherent objection to your position. Feel free to respond and I'll even let others pass judgement on whether your argument passes muster.
1) Adherents.com lists a figure of 2.1 billion Christians in the world. This is roughly 30% of the population and the breadth of specific tradition and width of devotion is immense. The number represents people ranging from those who merely self-identify because of their family background or country of origin to those who’s life is shaped and centered upon their religion. It would be difficult to list another people group as uniquely large as this one. Obvious difficulties exist in stereotyping individuals within such an immense group. It would be similarly futile to characterize people merely as being “Chinese” (1.3 billion) or “Indian” (1.2 billion).
|
1. I agree, but China has a government, as does India, as such they are able to exert control upon their members. The size of a group should in no way relieve them of their obligation to be good, rational, and intelligent people. Frankly, I feel responsible for what the entire human race does, and am often ashamed of the species I was born into.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) There is no centralized system of governance. The closest would be the Roman Catholic Church, but even this only presides over a fraction of the Christians in the world.
|
2. This is a problem, you need such a centralized system, or you need to stop letting the government protect these "churches" as they are not preaching religion and love, but instead are preaching indoctrination and hatred.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) There is no ability to limit the use of the term “Christian”. Even with a centralized system of governance, it would be helpless to govern someone who doesn’t recognize their authority but still chooses to use the name “Christian”. Legal challenges have been attempted (no doubt in part by faithful Christians) and have failed as the Supreme Court has defended WBC’s right to their activity.
|
3. Perhaps you should find something else to call yourself, unless you want to be held responsible for the actions of your unregulated group as a whole.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) Westboro Baptist, according to Wikipedia, had 40 members in 2011. That represents .00000019% of the membership of the group “Christian”. In other words for every member of Westboro there are 5.2 million Christians who are not members of Westboro.
|
4. You'd think the 2.1 billion Christians could do something about those 40 headaches at Westboro. As you pointed out, that's over 5.2 million Christians to act for each of the 40 members that you supposedly reject. Although, to be fair, they aren't the only 40 that think gay marriage is evil, they're just louder. How many Christians support gay marriage as a percent of the whole? I suspect many of you secretly support Westboro, but don't have the balls to admit it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
5) A direct correlary between this case and your own self-identified group of “scientist” would be exampled by Andrew Wakefield, the scientist who championed the link between autism and vaccines. His work as a scientist has done irreparable harm to the community. His paper was released in 1998. You might correctly point out that he was discredited and renounced by scientists in 2010, twelve years later, but nothing prevents him from still calling himself a scientist, from continuing research if he can find like-minded doners, or from doing anything that would generally be considered “scientific”. Wakefield himself did not accept the “ruling” that his paper was a hoax. Websites still exist championing his position that there is a relationship. What has been done is the limit of what is able to be done and is no more than the renunciation of Christian churches concerning Westboro. To quote Wikipedia again, “The WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations and the two largest Baptist denominations, the Baptist World Alliance and the Southern Baptist Convention have denounced the WBC over the years.” In other words, the governing bodies that might be most closely associated with WBC have denounced him. There is zero complicity.
|
5. Wakefield may call himself a Scientist, but he has no backing from any legitimate source, and will never be given any serious attention. That is how we as scientists regulate our people, we have stripped him of all creditability. Religions usually use shunning in this way. Yet, despite the announcement that they are not recognized, I don't see any real teeth here. If you can't make your 2.1 billion voices loud enough to drown out those 40 voices, then I think that says much about your level of commitment to the organization as a whole. Hell, even your responses show me that you don't believe in the organization as a whole, and think that your little sub-sect are the only ones "doing it right", a different manifestation of the same disease that has affected Westboro.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, to prove your case that Christians personally bear responsibility for Westboro you will have to show:
1) It is reasonable to be hold an individual member accountable for actions of 1 member per 5.2 million adherents. Examples of similar expectations within other groups should be provided.
|
1. Yes, it is reasonable to hold a group of 2.1 billion people responsible for failing to stop a group of 40 who are acting in their name.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) There are practical and effective methods available to the average Christian to stop such actions.
|
2. Yes, go to Westboro and make their lives miserable in every legal way you can... Do it from where you live, take action through legislation, work to ensure that religious protection doesn't extend to those who are clearly not doing anything helpful for society. Certainly 2.1 billion people should be able to do that pretty well wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) Examples of such practical and effective methods are seen in other groups, specifically the one you self-identify with: “scientist”.
I suspect those who happen to be reading will feel you have not proven your case. |
3. I've gone over the methods you ask for here previously, I do not have the time to respond with every method every other group uses, but that information is readily available to you if you should actually care to look. In the case of scientists we call our holy book "Peer Reviewed Journals" and there are well established rules that must be followed in order to be recognized as legitimate. Again, in the case of Mormons they use censure and excommunication. Of course, the problem you face, as you mentioned earlier, is that Christians have failed to regulate their group membership for so long now that reigning it in is probably a somewhat impossible task. I do recognize that, but it doesn't justify doing nothing, if every one of those 2.1 billion Christians did their part, under a unified message, I'm sure great things would happen - but you're all to darn busy arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to actually do anything really useful in terms of the organizational structure.
...
I suspect that those reading see the inherent weakness of your position. You want to be responsible for all of the good and none of the bad... That's about as strong of a position as telling your boss that you'd like a paycheck, but would rather not do any work.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 14:18:38. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:22:32 PM · #237 |
you arent ok with Christians enforcing their views on non believers but you want them to enforce their views on other Christians?
|
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:26:30 PM · #238 |
| Enforcing views is a speciality in rant :) |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:26:51 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
you arent ok with Christians enforcing their views on non believers but you want them to enforce their views on other Christians? |
Yes, you've got the right of it. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:31:40 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by Cory:
5. Wakefield may call himself a Scientist, but he has no backing from any legitimate source, and will never be given any serious attention. |
I'm not looking to enter into a rebuttal. I'll let your points stand on their own merit or lack thereof, but I will point out that the same exists for Wesboro in an exact correlary. Westboro may call themselves a Christian church, but has no backing from any legitimate source. It isn't given any serious attention, except by the media (who also give Wakefield plenty of attention as well). I don't know what else you want that has also been done by your own group.
From my perspective, the moment you hang Westboro around my neck you hang yourself with Wakefield and his quackery. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:37:30 PM · #241 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mike_311:
you arent ok with Christians enforcing their views on non believers but you want them to enforce their views on other Christians? |
Yes, you've got the right of it. |
got it, however easier said than done as Christianity in its purest form is a faith not a mandate.
the bible is full of thou shalls and shall nots but they tend to contradict each other and no one in 2000+ years has been able concretely make sense of them let alone definitively force a person adhere to them.
they change decade to decade and century to century based on societal acceptance.
the bible's out is that God gave humans free will so they are stuck doing as they individually choose, not even He can control them, he can only hope to influence them and them each other.
so i think you are expecting a little much.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 14:38:54. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:49:43 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
5. Wakefield may call himself a Scientist, but he has no backing from any legitimate source, and will never be given any serious attention. |
I'm not looking to enter into a rebuttal. I'll let your points stand on their own merit or lack thereof, but I will point out that the same exists for Wesboro in an exact correlary. Westboro may call themselves a Christian church, but has no backing from any legitimate source. It isn't given any serious attention, except by the media (who also give Wakefield plenty of attention as well). I don't know what else you want that has also been done by your own group.
From my perspective, the moment you hang Westboro around my neck you hang yourself with Wakefield and his quackery. |
To me, the difference the the frequency of and degree to which the "legitimate spokespeople" denounce the heretics ... bishops or the Pope publicly denouncing Westboro as "not truly Christian," respected Imams labeling Al Qaeda as a perversion (where was the fatwa on bin Laden?) ... I think the scientific community has done this to a greater extent than organized religion. Frequent and vociferous dissociation from the hate groups would help ... instead, the only people who call out those hypocrites seem to be the religiously-unaffiliated. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 02:58:22 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by mike_311:
you arent ok with Christians enforcing their views on non believers but you want them to enforce their views on other Christians? |
Yes, you've got the right of it. |
got it, however easier said than done as Christianity in its purest form is a faith not a mandate.
the bible is full of thou shalls and shall nots but they tend to contradict each other and no one in 2000+ years has been able concretely make sense of them let alone definitively force a person adhere to them.
they change decade to decade and century to century based on societal acceptance.
the bible's out is that God gave humans free will so they are stuck doing as they individually choose, not even He can control them, he can only hope to influence them and them each other.
so i think you are expecting a little much. |
I figure if it's really that broken, then scrapping the whole thing might be a pretty good idea.
All the reasons you list for me to be forgiving are the reasons that incite me the most - I think it should be obvious what a mindfuck this entire thing is, yet I am clearly in the minority. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:02:17 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
5. Wakefield may call himself a Scientist, but he has no backing from any legitimate source, and will never be given any serious attention. |
I'm not looking to enter into a rebuttal. |
Disappointing, as you have yet again shown very little respect for the effort I went to in order to effectively respond to you.
Although, I do sympathize, it must be very exhausting to tie yourself into these knots defending the indefensible. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:03:29 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
From my perspective, the moment you hang Westboro around my neck you hang yourself with Wakefield and his quackery. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
To me, the difference the the frequency of and degree to which the "legitimate spokespeople" denounce the heretics ... bishops or the Pope publicly denouncing Westboro as "not truly Christian," respected Imams labeling Al Qaeda as a perversion (where was the fatwa on bin Laden?) ... I think the scientific community has done this to a greater extent than organized religion. Frequent and vociferous dissociation from the hate groups would help ... instead, the only people who call out those hypocrites seem to be the religiously-unaffiliated. |
With all respect Paul, do you peruse religious websites and media centers regularly? Could your perception be a natural bias of tending to read religiously-unaffiliated sources? You also have to realize that the pope doesn't typically speak about Protestant churches as it is. If you want lists of Protestant leaders denouncing Westboro, it is long. Again, I'm not sure the sources you typically read care.
An exmaple from The Christian Post (probably not on your favorites)
"
LONDON – Six Christian organizations have unanimously condemned plans by the Westboro Baptist Church to picket in the United Kingdom....
The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Evangelical Alliance, Faithworks, the Methodist Church, theology thank tank Theos, and the United Reformed Churches denounced Westboro’s theology and its proposed picket."
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 15:06:20. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:03:33 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
5. Wakefield may call himself a Scientist, but he has no backing from any legitimate source, and will never be given any serious attention. |
I'm not looking to enter into a rebuttal. I'll let your points stand on their own merit or lack thereof, but I will point out that the same exists for Wesboro in an exact correlary. Westboro may call themselves a Christian church, but has no backing from any legitimate source. It isn't given any serious attention, except by the media (who also give Wakefield plenty of attention as well). I don't know what else you want that has also been done by your own group.
From my perspective, the moment you hang Westboro around my neck you hang yourself with Wakefield and his quackery. |
To me, the difference the the frequency of and degree to which the "legitimate spokespeople" denounce the heretics ... bishops or the Pope publicly denouncing Westboro as "not truly Christian," respected Imams labeling Al Qaeda as a perversion (where was the fatwa on bin Laden?) ... I think the scientific community has done this to a greater extent than organized religion. Frequent and vociferous dissociation from the hate groups would help ... instead, the only people who call out those hypocrites seem to be the religiously-unaffiliated. |
And of course, that allows the Christians to close ranks and protect the doers of evil. A rather effective system of armor, but one that will eventually stifle the wearer. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:07:53 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
With all respect Paul, do you peruse religious websites and media centers regularly? Could your perception be a natural bias of tending to read religiously-unaffiliated sources? You also have to realize that the pope doesn't typically speak about Protestant churches as it is. If you want lists of Protestant leaders denouncing Westboro, it is long. Again, I'm not sure the sources you typically read care. |
You've got to be kidding? You're dismissing his observations because he's not reading your internal newsletters?
Newsflash: Mainstream media matters much more than your crappy little in-house rags. And each of you quietly telling each other that you disapprove isn't really doing much for you in the public eye.
You're right, I don't read Watchtower, or Inspire - and I'd bet you don't either. I'd bet that I've never even heard of any of the stuff you read. That's the problem, you think that by talking to the people who are exactly like you, and by printing your objections in your little newsletters will make some difference, when in fact it does little more than convince you that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Why don't you folks take a page from Westboro's playbook and try picketing instead of praying? I'm sure a world-wide display of 2.1 billion Christians picketing Westboro and demanding that the US government does something about it would get results inside of a week.
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 15:10:11. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:11:18 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
An exmaple from The Christian Post (probably not on your favorites)
"
LONDON – Six Christian organizations have unanimously condemned plans by the Westboro Baptist Church to picket in the United Kingdom....
The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Evangelical Alliance, Faithworks, the Methodist Church, theology thank tank Theos, and the United Reformed Churches denounced Westboro’s theology and its proposed picket." |
Ohhh, they condemned their plans.. Yikes, that's pretty strong. What do you think that took? Seven guys and fifty minutes?
Message edited by author 2012-10-31 15:11:42. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:14:05 PM · #249 |
By the way, if I read those things and actually believed what they said, I'd be trying to build bombs in my mothers kitchen so I could blow up your church because Inspire tells me that it's the way to heaven.
I suppose you should be pretty thankful that I don't read them, and don't believe them. |
|
|
|
10/31/2012 03:16:43 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Why don't you folks take a page from Westboro's playbook and try picketing instead of praying? I'm sure a world-wide display of 2.1 billion Christians picketing Westboro and demanding that the US government does something about it would get results inside of a week. |
Supreme Court: 'hurtful speech' of Westboro Baptist Church is protected |
|
