Skip to main content

View Diary: The Swiss Vote against Religious Freedom (257 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this is funny (0+ / 0-)

    so, you've seen atheists say stupid things, you've argued with atheists who have stated that believers should be considered mentally ill and not allowed to vote, yet someone else having argued with atheists who wish to ban religious symbols on private land, that's just unpossible.

    i'm sure lucky i have a stenographer midget tied to my back who records all of my conversations just in case some guy on the internet demands proof that the cabbie who nearly ran me over yesterday called me a 'kike'. i've got the whole transcript right here.

    anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

    by chopper on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 05:32:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ignoring your hostility, (0+ / 0-)

      no one has argued that atheists who wish to ban religious symbols on private land don't exist. The argument has been with two things Caj has asserted:

      1. that atheists who make this argument are anything but the rare exception, and
      1. the strong and consistent implication that atheists who speak out about atheism and atheist rights equal the obnoxious, irrational group of haters he consistently highlights as representative of the "speak out" atheist. Related to this, he or she seems to argue that the only good atheist is a silent, accommodationist atheist.

      Now, you can, and, based on your track record will, continue to ignore the substance of the argument and resort instead to childish ad hominems, but that is your problem, not mine. Continue in that vein and folks will tend to add you to the list of people no one wants to discuss anything with.

      One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:05:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah. (0+ / 0-)

        i see at least you're backing away from this 'most atheists' thing you were accusing him of saying, which he never said at all. that's nice.

        The argument has been with two things Caj has asserted:

        that atheists who make this argument are anything but the rare exception

        10% is pretty exceptional to me. i mean, 10% of all people are at least nuts. i'll gladly admit that 10% of jews are batshit insane, in this country i consider that to be a win for the culture.

        and the strong and consistent implication that atheists who speak out about atheism and atheist rights equal the obnoxious, irrational group of haters he consistently highlights as representative of the "speak out" atheist.

        not really, at all. he said that the excitable talkative ones occasionally espouse some half-baked ideas. this should not be a surprise to anyone. i'd go so far as to say that this is true of any philosophy or religion.

        Related to this, he or she seems to argue that the only good atheist is a silent, accommodationist atheist.

        it 'seems' that you should reread his posts.

        anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

        by chopper on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 06:21:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said 10% because (0+ / 0-)

          We keep seeing polls where even the craziest option is picked by at least 10% of the responses.  

          Admittedly, this could just mean that 10% of people like to wind up the pollster.

        •  I posted a whole list of binary quotes by Caj (0+ / 0-)

          one after another, posed clearly as if there are only two options. I don't need to copy and paste them over and over, read the thread.

          One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

          by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:08:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            they're 'binary' because you read them that way (you should look up what a bimodal distribution actually implies). if caj were a conservative and said 'i'm a christian conservative, not one of those libertarians' it'd be silly to accuse him of asserting that those are the only types of conservatives out there.

            there's a lot of 'seems' and 'as if'-s in your posts. maybe instead of assuming so much, you should have just asked him instead. you wouldn't end up looking so daft.

            anyone born after the McDLT has no business stomping around acting punk rock

            by chopper on Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 05:24:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  No. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomActsOfReason

      that's just unpossible.

      Since you have utterly ignored what I actually asserted, I'll copy it for you again:

      I have never met an atheist who has argued that private religious displays on private land should be banned. And yet you claim you "routinely argue with" such people--an assertion that has all the hallmarks of fabricated nonsense. Especially when combined with your broader point, which serves only to tar atheists generally with mud from your phantom Canadian girlfriend.

      It is not "unpossible" that Caj has run into a random crank arguing that crosses should be banned. It is, however, severely dubious to assert, as Caj did, that his/her run-ins with such people are "routine"--that is, that such idiocy is common among atheists. It is not, and the case (s)he was making in that assertion is a bullshit slander of millions of innocent people--the after-the-fact "10%" ass-covering notwithstanding.


      i'm sure lucky i have a stenographer midget tied to my back....

      If you aren't capable of finding citable evidence that anti-Semites use the word "kike" (even "routinely"), it's hard to see why you should be taken seriously, either.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site