Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:You guys really are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I'm saying, and then jumping all over the place in your rebuttals. I'll respond when I have some more time, but like Burt said, it's difficult to unravel the miscommunication when you seem so intent on confirming your own narrative.

Yep. This has become a contest in who can yell the loudest over the other person's argument. #subwayargument

Agreed. This isn't worth the effort anymore. Clearly we are just talking in circles at this point.

You guys should instead weigh in on my coffee stand dilemma in GD

LoathedVermin72 wrote:You guys really are fundamentally misunderstanding everything I'm saying, and then jumping all over the place in your rebuttals. I'll respond when I have some more time, but like Burt said, it's difficult to unravel the miscommunication when you seem so intent on confirming your own narrative.

What you're saying is pretty clear and Stip is very clearly responding to what you're saying.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:You guys should instead weigh in on my coffee stand dilemma in GD

why don't the terrorists attack Starbucks?

ALL COFFEE STANDS ARE EVIL!

My interpretation early on was that LV was getting back into "all religion is bullshit" territory...

Spoiler: show

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

I really don't buy that rejecting patently absurd claims can be considered dogmatic. This is getting back to the discussions in the God thread, but this all stems from the culture of legitimacy that is fostered around the concept of religion.

...which, like, yeah, but who cares? It's not an affectable condition.

McParadigm wrote:My interpretation early on was that LV was getting back into "all religion is bullshit" territory...

Spoiler: show

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

I really don't buy that rejecting patently absurd claims can be considered dogmatic. This is getting back to the discussions in the God thread, but this all stems from the culture of legitimacy that is fostered around the concept of religion.

...which, like, yeah, but who cares? It's not an affectable condition.

I'm not sure that's true. Seems like a defeatist way to approach things.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:My interpretation early on was that LV was getting back into "all religion is bullshit" territory...

Spoiler: show

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

I really don't buy that rejecting patently absurd claims can be considered dogmatic. This is getting back to the discussions in the God thread, but this all stems from the culture of legitimacy that is fostered around the concept of religion.

...which, like, yeah, but who cares? It's not an affectable condition.

I'm not sure that's true. Seems like a defeatist way to approach things.

What do you think the non-defeatest approach to such a thing would be?

McParadigm wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:My interpretation early on was that LV was getting back into "all religion is bullshit" territory...

Spoiler: show

Because I don't really give a fuck about how individuals/regions cherry-pick and interpret when the foundation they are all beginning from is bullshit. Some people might believe Russell's Teapot is blue while others believe it is purple, but they both believe in nonsense.

I really don't buy that rejecting patently absurd claims can be considered dogmatic. This is getting back to the discussions in the God thread, but this all stems from the culture of legitimacy that is fostered around the concept of religion.

...which, like, yeah, but who cares? It's not an affectable condition.

I'm not sure that's true. Seems like a defeatist way to approach things.

What do you think the non-defeatest approach to such a thing would be?

To feel like discussing it in the first place is worthwhile, I suppose.

I think we all agree that all muslims are terrorists, so we have that at least. We can work from that foundation.

Religious fundamentalists are horrible people. No matter what religion. I've seen those types of people do more harm in the world than good. they dont speak for everyone, but they sure do bring a bad name to said religion.

Christians were just as violent as muslims. Fundamentalist catholics, christians (whatever) today still use their religious beliefs to strip rights from people. Some even take it to the extreme of mass shootings, bombings, and hate crimes.

I dont know where the line is drawn between someone taking their religious beliefs to such extremes but they are just horrible people to begin with.

And fuck that barista that destroyed rudd's day

Just purchased a venti iced coffee to honor this thread. Straight black of course because I'm not a animal.

jwfocker wrote:Just purchased a venti iced coffee to honor this thread. Straight black of course because I'm not a animal.

Is there any way I can construe this as you being racist?

THe only way to love America is to load up the planes with bombs and soldiers and go blow shit up.

I don't think what LV is suggesting is worthless in the grand scheme of things, but stip and track11 seem to have a better real-world approach to the complexity of the issue as it currently exists. I say this not as a slight to LV or others in agreement, but I don't think the ideas being presented are actually helpful to the current crises.

Attempting to disregard ancient religions practiced by billions due to a minority that manipulates it's followers in the name of those gods, whilst others of the same faith actively condemn these groups as heretics of their modern faith, whom seemingly still hold onto medieval concepts, is just point-blank wrong.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on theism, modern or fundamental, but these are my perceptions as someone who has interacted with people of all faiths first hand, and has been connected to the world at large like most for the last 10-15 years.

Strat wrote:THe only way to love America is to load up the planes with bombs and soldiers and go blow shit up.

Or build giant walls at both borders, restrict the ports, and bring all the military home.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Strat wrote:THe only way to love America is to load up the planes with bombs and soldiers and go blow shit up.

Or build giant walls at both borders, restrict the ports, and bring all the military home.

Are you mocking me?

Kaius wrote:I don't think what LV is suggesting is worthless in the grand scheme of things, but stip and track11 seem to have a better real-world approach to the complexity of the issue as it currently exists. I say this not as a slight to LV or others in agreement, but I don't think the ideas being presented are actually helpful to the current crises.

Attempting to disregard ancient religions practiced by billions due to a minority that manipulates it's followers in the name of those gods, whilst others of the same faith actively condemn these groups as heretics of their modern faith, whom seemingly still hold onto medieval concepts, is just point-blank wrong.

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on theism, modern or fundamental, but these are my perceptions as someone who has interacted with people of all faiths first hand, and has been connected to the world at large like most for the last 10-15 years.

good post

...Except the middle paragraph, which no one here is doing. But, again, it seems like we're all talking over each other.