[Devolution]

It always amuses me the amount of Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc that have sex out of wedlock. Among other things. But only from those who like to get on their high horses and demean everyone else.

It amuses me when they admit to having sex that isn't procreative period if they're shaming others for having sex out of marriage.

[Mama Robotnik]

all right, i gotta see that. links

Right, as promised some links and quotes. I've literally spent twenty minutes skimming the surface of the dozens of Geohot/hack threads, there are thousands of posts to go through and I don't have the time to re-read them all.

Of the ones below, some of these comments are addressed directly at George, others are aimed towards all hackers and homebrew users of any kinds (regardless of their involvement in the PSN situation), and some specifically towards those that disabled the PSN network:

I hope that stupid Geohot gets ass-raped in jail with all his friends, I can't see Linux mentioned once in the "homebrew" thread here or anywhere else in the Internet, the exploits only brought "backups" (lol) and emulators talk. I didn't know so many people with arcade boards at home, I mean they're really expensive and the method/device used to dump the roms is not common place at all...

ugh, fuck these hackers. I hope they get caught and get an ass raping in prison.

I hope those hackers go to butt rape jail.

Personally? Yes i would. Because lets not fool ourselves here: Despite if Geohot said that his jailbreak was created for other purposes than piracy, by giving it to the public it was like giving to other hackers the keys to pirate the machine to bits. He KNEW that this was gonna happen and he WANTED the publicity for it. Period. I want to see how well he will pirate from the inside of a jail cell, with an inmate groping his arse.

what an ass hole this guy got a big head some one didnt hug him as a kid and now he take it from anywhere soon to be up the ass in the shower i think

Many of these are banned, but it wasn't apparently for the quoted posts as their post histories show.

But yeah, these posts (and others like them in the same threads) really quite offended me.

[NathanMcMahon]

I would love to see Canuck76 respond to this post, but sadly we know that will never happen. The only joy I get is the thought that he has most likely read it, and definitely felt like he could not possibly come up with an adequate response to such an intelligent post, and took the cowardly way out by ignoring it.

Bigots are generally cowardly.

[Salvadora]

I really hate those posts calling for sexual assault towards criminals.

[Orayn]

I did wind up PMing Canuck with the pithy subject line of 'pls respond.' Now we wait!

EDIT: Oh he's posted since then. Oops. Well, at least I brought it to his attention.

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Yep. Recently came across these two posts as well when the Michael Jackson death thread was brought back up for the anniversary. Yeah, just... wow.

That is fucking unacceptable how can people freely talk as if what they say is fact and is automatically accepted by everyone else are they posting with perks or something...wtf..

[CHEEZMO™]

That is fucking unacceptable how can people freely talk as if what they say is fact and is automatically accepted by everyone else are they posting with perks or something...wtf..

what

[Parallax]

what

I agree with this.

[bjb]

Volternus doubting the numbers of the Holocaust and pointing to the ridiculous Leuchter report was ... irritating to say the least.

You may not agree with him, but it seems he didn't write anything blatantly offensive (imo).

[Devolution]

You may not agree with him, but it seems he didn't write anything blatantly offensive (imo).

Denying the sheer number of victims is the goalposts being moved since people can't flat out deny the whole event anymore. It comes from the same place though.

[bjb]

Denying the sheer number of victims is the goalposts being moved since people can't flat out deny the whole event anymore. It comes from the same place though.

There's quite a distinction between saying "not as many people died" versus "the entire event is fake".

Saying they come from the same mentality is really a crass generalization. If a historian were to investigate the events (perhaps in light of new evidence) then he/she can still be sympathetic and skeptical at the same time.

[Devolution]

There's quite a distinction between saying "not as many people died" versus "the entire event is fake". Saying they come from the same mentality is really a crass generalization. If a historian were to investigate the events (perhaps in light of new evidence) then he/she can still be sympathetic and skeptical at the same time.

Nope. It comes from the same people who touted Holocaust Denial but since that's a big red flag now the argument is that the numbers are exaggerated or "how is it even possible that many people could have died."

[Riggs]

Trailer park boys thread not being past 2 pages is pretty fucking offensive to me.

[BaronLundi]

If a historian were to investigate the events (perhaps in light of new evidence)

If ?

new ?

wow.

[jaxword]

Because all religious people think the same right? That's the attitude that's the problem. A thread about how a religious man does something crazy? Call out all religious people. It's easily the worst part of GAF.

You actually think it's worse than the guy saying homosexuals are as bad as animal rapists?

[KO Traveling Hobo]

Nope. It comes from the same people who touted Holocaust Denial but since that's a big red flag now the argument is that the numbers are exaggerated or "how is it even possible that many people could have died."

I dunno about that. Someone nailed it earlier in the thread -- it's just really hard to wrap one's head around the sheer scale of the Holocaust. I don't think it's fake or that the numbers are inflated or anything, personally, but it's still really damn hard for a middle class white dude living at home like me to imagine six million people being slaughtered. It's just so massive and horrific that my brain can't even begin to understand it.

Sure, you might be right that the guy is just a subtler Holocaust denier, but it's kind of fucked up to jump to that conclusion and start pointing fingers. Especially when there are other, more reasonable possibilities.

edit: vvv ...well then.

[Cromat]

You may not agree with him, but it seems he didn't write anything blatantly offensive (imo).

He also wrote that the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Jews to make profit, and that IS blatantly offensive.

[WoodenLung]

He also wrote that the Holocaust was exaggerated by the Jews to make profit, and that IS blatantly offensive.

How would the bigger profit part even work?

[Cromat]

How would the bigger profit part even work?

Israel as compensation for the holocaust crap.
Ignores history completely and tries to rationalize the Holocaust by arguing that the Jews somehow benefitted.

As stupid as it is disgusting.

[jaxword]

Bigots are generally cowardly.

Canuck76 has not responded to why he agrees homosexuals are no better than animal rapists.

Shall I PM the quote to him and say we want a response, or would that be kinda rude?

No, don't do that. The guy is a terrible person, but harassment like that isn't the way to solve the problem.

People need to be held accountable for what they say and do, otherwise there really is no point to public discussion at all.

[NathanMcMahon]

Canuck76 has not responded to why he agrees homosexuals are no better than animal rapists.

hence, the cowardly bigot.

[jaxword]

Why can't we all just get along? Why do we need to make tier lists for insults?

We don't "need" to make tier lists, they already exist.

You already know this--there's some things you don't like hearing, but they don't send you into a rage. And then there's some that throw you into a fit of rage.

Your own mind has its own "tier" lists of insults.

That being said, let's just be reasonable:

Making a crack about how Xers is stupid is an insult.
Making a crack about how Xers deserves to die is a BIT harsher.

[KO Traveling Hobo]

We don't "need" to make tier lists, they already exist. You already know this--there's some things you don't like hearing, but they don't send you into a rage. And then there's some that throw you into a fit of rage. Your own mind has its own "tier" lists of insults. That being said, let's just be reasonable: Making a crack about how Xers is stupid is an insult. Making a crack about how Xers deserves to die is a BIT harsher.

My point was that one insult being worse than another doesn't make the lesser insult okay. Instead of weighing them against each other, why can't we all just not be douchenozzles?

[jaxword]

My point was that one insult being worse than another doesn't make the lesser insult okay. Instead of weighing them against each other, why can't we all just not be douchenozzles?

What happens when the douchenozzles use cognitive dissonance and outright lying to say they aren't assholes or insulting people? I.e. "I'm just saying what the Bible says, so that means it's ok!"

There was a great example last page. What is your response to that?

[KO Traveling Hobo]

What happens when the douchenozzles use cognitive dissonance and outright lying to say they aren't assholes or insulting people? I.e. "I'm just saying what the Bible says, so that means it's ok!" There was a great example last page. What is your response to that?

Then the dude's a douchenozzle. That doesn't justify shitting on religion and religious people as a whole, since he doesn't represent anyone but himself.

I don't buy into the "religion is super big so it's okay to insult it" thing.

[jaxword]

Then the dude's a douchenozzle. That doesn't justify shitting on religion and religious people as a whole, since he doesn't represent anyone but himself. I don't buy into the "religion is super big so it's okay to insult it" thing.

How about insulting the members who DO support those terrible views?

[jdogmoney]

How about insulting the members who DO support those terrible views?

Or the ridiculous, outdated notions that allow such views to fester?

[KO Traveling Hobo]

How about insulting the members who DO support those terrible views?

Go for it. Just don't drag the rest of religion and religious people into it.

edit: fwiw, I'm not religious and I never have been.

[jaxword]

Go for it. Just don't drag the rest of religion and religious people into it. edit: fwiw, I'm not religious and I never have been.

That seems reasonable...to a point.

When do we draw the line when it becomes endemic? 1? 5? 10? 100? 1000? 10 000?

I had a debate once where a religious person was defending religion because HE was accepting of homosexuality. I asked him what the majority thought, and he said no, the majority did not.

But, like all religious debates, the individual invariably thinks of himself as THE paragon of his religion and thus the perfect example and his version is the right version.

So while your idea is obviously based upon the idea of fostering understanding, there simply ARE times when the majority of religious people are simply being awful bigots. Not all times, not every time, but you have to admit there ARE times.

And it is those times that yes, "drag the rest of religion" is appropriate.

So if some Christian spouts off about, oh, video games causing school shootings, yeah, that's probably not indicative of the religion as a whole.

If some Christian spouts off about reasons X Y Z why gays are subhuman (sinners, perverts, animal-rapers), that probably is indicative of the majority religious thought--a simple look at the political opposition towards gay marriage is pretty damning evidence alone.

See the difference?

[Alligatorjandro]

I think we see what a person thinks before judging them.

[Jburton]

Or the ridiculous, outdated notions that allow such views to fester?

Some people just like to hate, religion can be an excuse, as can be unemployment (attacking immigrants / racism) among other things.


People will sometimes hide behind things to act as cover so as not to be exposed as just an out and out bigot / racist / misogynist etc.


Religion has done many horrible things and men have used it as reason to do horrible things ..... and it has done some wonderous things and inspired people to do wonderous and beautiful acts.


It is people that hate, not a faith ........ Christ never said anything about homosexuality, nor celibacy or most if not all the weird / crazy / insulting or offensive things that branches of Christanity spew.


I as a Christian believe that a man had some nice ideas on how to live in peace with each other, how to take care of each other, how to love one another, how to turn the other cheek and not hold hate in your heart.


All other things come from those who twisted his teachings to suit their own agendas.

[KO Traveling Hobo]

That seems reasonable...to a point. When do we draw the line when it becomes endemic? 1? 5? 10? 100? 1000? 10 000? I had a debate once where a religious person was defending religion because HE was accepting of homosexuality. I asked him what the majority thought, and he said no, the majority did not. But, like all religious debates, the individual invariably thinks of himself as THE paragon of his religion and thus the perfect example and his version is the right version. So while your idea is obviously based upon the idea of fostering understanding, there simply ARE times when the majority of religious people are simply being awful bigots. Not all times, not every time, but you have to admit there ARE times. And it is those times that yes, "drag the rest of religion" is appropriate. So if some Christian spouts off about, oh, video games causing school shootings, yeah, that's probably not indicative of the religion as a whole. If some Christian spouts off about reasons X Y Z why gays are subhuman, that probably is indicative of the majority religion. See the difference?

Even if it's indicative of the majority of religion, you're still roping in a ton of people who don't agree with it, and putting a really insulting label on them. And to what end?

I believe that the focus should be on the individual.

[Jburton]

Even if it's indicative of the majority of religion, you're still roping in a ton of people who don't agree with it, and putting a really insulting label on them. And to what end? I believe that the focus should be on the individual.

I have had this conversation but he obviously has some level of hate for religion and or religious people, waste of time.

[jaxword]

Even if it's indicative of the majority of religion, you're still roping in a ton of people who don't agree with it, and putting a really insulting label on them. And to what end? I believe that the focus should be on the individual.

That doesn't make sense. If the majority DOES agree to something, than the group SHOULD be condemned for it. It is completely pointless and illogical to go after individual members as that will achieve absolutely nothing positive in the long run--especially, as I have said numerous times, individuals in religious debates see themselves as the representatives of the religion and thus feel their version is the correct one.

I have had this conversation but he obviously has some level of hate for religion and or religious people, waste of time.

Your strawman just indicates you don't have an argument and that you don't even remotely understand what I'm saying so you just resort to "He must hate religion."

I have no more "hate" for religion than I do for any other political group or organization who have bigoted and hateful stances. In this thread alone I made it clear that there are positive actions done by religion. I had a huge debate with someone who ran off when he couldn't prove his point and understand why those positive actions simply aren't enough these days.

And just to cut you off before you try it, I've also made it clear I have little respect for the atheists who are doing a terrible job as well of establishing positive credibility.

[MetalGuardian]

It is people that hate, not a faith ........ Christ never said anything about homosexuality, nor celibacy or most if not all the weird / crazy / insulting or offensive things that branches of Christanity spew.

That's not entirely true. While there may not be any New Testament quotes from him about it, Jesus was a champion of the Old Testament. In fact, he spent years teaching the Old Testament, so surely he believed in what the Old Testament said. He never taught to ignore the Old Testament or that it had some terrible, immoral commands from God in it.

Yes, there's that whole bit about him coming to "fulfill" the law, but God considering homosexuality "abhorrent" isn't a law, that's just the moral stance on it. Stoning people for being homosexual was the law aspect, but that doesn't change the stance God has on the morality of it.

Here are some verses on Jesus speaking of the Old Testament:
http://carm.org/questions/about-jesu...-old-testament

[KO Traveling Hobo]

That doesn't make sense. If the majority DOES agree to something, than the group SHOULD be condemned for it. It is completely pointless and illogical to go after individual members as that will achieve absolutely nothing positive in the long run--especially, as I have said numerous times, individuals in religious debates see themselves as the representatives of the religion and thus feel their version is the correct one.

Taking potshots at religion whenever a nutter comes out of the woodwork isn't going to achieve anything positive in the long run, either. All that does is reinforce the negative image of atheists while giving good religious people a reason to band together with the nutters.

You're a lot more likely to convince people to reconsider specific beliefs than you are to convince them that their entire religion is bad and they should feel bad. Baby steps, man.

[Famassu]

Yeah i stand behind that 100%. That's what i believe. He's not trying to wreck people or shame them, or even accuse or judge them. That's the truth and he's telling it. There's no sense of superiority in that. It's a statement of what is right and wrong. Now if what i believe is disrespectful to their lifestyle pfffhahahaha, buckle up because life is gets tougher than that hahahaha. That's just ridiculous on a whole other level. Point is i think we all go out of our way to express support for persona sexuall freedoms and realize how the world is and that people disagree and have different lives. That's fine. Here's what i believe, you may not, I'm not going to try to persecute you or come after you, or take anything away. We don't support bullying of any sort. But we do have concrete beliefs of right and wrong. Here's what they are, here's why they work, here's why i disagree. Those guys have always been accommodating in that regard.

Congratulations for being a horrible human being.

Just because you're not TRYING to wreck people's lives with that stupid-ass bigoted nonsense doesn't mean you aren't. I've seen it first-hand what simple off-hand remarks about how "gays are gross/ewww/horrible" can do to a person (I know a young lesbian couple, both of whom are still in the closet, who had/have to hear that kind of BS from other students at school, attitudes learned from their parents, and how it totally crushed the other girl). And don't you dare give shit excuses like "lulz, life is hard, deal with it". Having to deal with hardships like being jobless is different than having to deal with being gay or black in a bigoted society. There's nothing one can do to what you are, while stupid-ass shitheads can do a lot to not make their life any harder by not accepting them as the people they are and comparing what they are & do to having sex with animals.

[jaxword]

Taking potshots at religion whenever a nutter comes out of the woodwork isn't going to achieve anything positive in the long run, either. All that does is reinforce the negative image of atheists while giving good religious people a reason to band together with the nutters. You're a lot more likely to convince people to reconsider specific beliefs than you are to convince them that their entire religion is bad and they should feel bad. Baby steps, man.

I should point out that several times in this thread I already said that the atheist pot shots don't achieve anything substantial, so I am not defending them--I made it clear I am pitying them, because that's really all they THINK that they can do against such an overpowering tide of vitriol and hypocrisy, mixed with moments of goodness that are lost in the wave. I've also said the atheists need to really rethink their public image.

So your post is something I already said earlier.


That being said, I stand by what I said in that:

a) throwing a tantrum because your religion is insulted is pathetic, simply because YOU ARE THE MAJORITY. The big guy whining because the little guy hurts their feelings is just sad.

b) there is nothing wrong with condemning an organization (ANY organization, religion, political, social) whose majority hold terrible views. A lot of people try to play the card of "Well those OTHERS are just WRONG, *I* represent the right group view.

And that's just ironic how they can't see the arrogance and contradiction of that argument.

[KO Traveling Hobo]

I should point out that several times in this thread I already said that the atheist pot shots don't achieve anything substantial, so I am not defending them--I made it clear I am pitying them, because that's really all they THINK that they can do against such an overpowering tide of vitriol and hypocrisy, mixed with moments of goodness that are lost in the wave. I've also said the atheists need to really rethink their public image. So your post is something I already said earlier. That being said, I stand by what I said in that: a) throwing a tantrum because your religion is insulted is pathetic, simply because YOU ARE THE MAJORITY. The big guy whining because the little guy hurts their feelings is just sad. b) there is nothing wrong with condemning an organization (ANY organization, religion, political, social) whose majority hold terrible views. A lot of people try to play the card of "Well those OTHERS are just WRONG, *I* represent the right group view. And that's just ironic how they can't see the arrogance and contradiction of that argument.

a) Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see much(if any) tantrum throwing. I'm sure that someone threw a tantrum at some point, but the majority was simply "it pisses me off when GAF shits on religion."

b) How is it arrogant or contradictory when you agree that those beliefs(homosexuality is okay, women are awesome, etc) are correct? Isn't the non-bigoted view the right view?

If a person is religious but doesn't hold any of the typical bigoted beliefs, and you proceed to (indirectly) call them homophobic/sexist/etc bigots, then you're sending the message that you care more about attacking religion than attacking bigotry. Now, that message isn't true, but it's the one that a lot of people are going to take away.

[Matthew Gallant]

I believe that the focus should be on the individual.

And you shall know him by the company he keeps.

[jaxword]

a) Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see much(if any) tantrum throwing. I'm sure that someone threw a tantrum at some point, but the majority was simply "it pisses me off when GAF shits on religion." b) How is it arrogant or contradictory when you agree that those beliefs(homosexuality is okay, women are awesome, etc) are correct? Isn't the non-bigoted view the right view? If a person is religious but doesn't hold any of the typical bigoted beliefs, and you proceed to (indirectly) call them homophobic/sexist/etc bigots, then you're sending the message that you care more about attacking religion than attacking bigotry. Now, that message isn't true, but it's the one that a lot of people are going to take away.

A) I'm not lying when I say there are indeed tantrums thrown. I could look them up, but, really, do you REALLY need them? I think you're a reasonable guy who knows they happen.

b) No, you misunderstood. The arrogance is in the act of declaring oneself to be more right than the majority JUST BECAUSE it makes you look better. It's contradictory because if you join an organization and the majority viewpoint is the OPPOSITE Of what you believe in, why are you even a part of it?

As for your last point, you are correct. I haven't called any religious person who doesn't hold the bigoted beliefs of their leaders a bigot. If I have, then I was mistaken or misinterpreted, because that's not the message I want to get across. I have called them hypocrites, and I stand by that, but I do not call them things they are clearly not. I call them out for supporting an organization that promote horrible views. And while they may not PERSONALLY hold those views, defending the organization that does is almost as bad. Do you understand why I say this?

You do not get to join an organization and then declare the majority viewpoint as wrong because you want it to be. Do you think that's a reasonable way to think?

[MetalGuardian]

Congratulations for being a horrible human being. Just because you're not TRYING to wreck people's lives with that stupid-ass bigoted nonsense doesn't mean you aren't. I've seen it first-hand what simple off-hand remarks about how "gays are gross/ewww/horrible" can do to a person (I know a young lesbian couple, both of whom are still in the closet, who had/have to hear that kind of BS from other students at school, attitudes learned from their parents, and how it totally crushed the other girl). And don't you dare give shit excuses like "lulz, life is hard, deal with it". Having to deal with hardships like being jobless is different than having to deal with being gay or black in a bigoted society. There's nothing one can do to what you are, while stupid-ass shitheads can do a lot to not make their life any harder by not accepting them as the people they are and comparing what they are & do to having sex with animals.

Maybe I missed something, but based on the post you quoted I dont think Canuck is being a horrible human being. He's saying he doesn't advocate bullying or discrimination, right?

If you DO believe in the Bible and DON'T think homosexuality is a sin, then you are ignoring tenants of the book that gives you everything you base your life on. I've never understood buffet Christians... just picking which parts they are comfortable believing in. If you are a Christian, what makes you believe certain parts of the Bible over others? The Bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin, so it's hypocritical to both believe fully in the Bible and NOT think of homosexuality as sinful. It's just being logically consistent for a Christian to think of homosexuality as immoral.

Where did he say that homosexuality is similar to having sex with animals? I didn't see that part if he in fact said it.

I am slightly more understanding about all of this because I was a Christian for so long, and a devout one at that. I even applied to a pastor school because I wanted to plant my own church. I used to share these same views, and not because I came up with the idea on my own that homosexuality was gross, but rather because I wanted to be loyal to the God who had given me everything, and who was promising eternal life. Surely this God knows more than me, right? And if he says homosexuality is a sin, even if I may not understand it, surely He knows best?

That is why I think it's better to attack religion, and not the religious person in cases like this. Religion is the thing causing these mindsets. If someone really believes in a divine being that grants them life, both here and Earth and throughout eternity, I can very much understand taking that being's viewpoint over a bunch of "sinful, fallen humans" as the Bible describes us.

Logical consistency is something I wish there was more of in society. So, that being said, I feel like most religious people have good intentions, they've just based those intentions on religious tenants that a lot of us recognize as oppressive.

I hate homophobia. It disgusts me and saddens me and I always call it out when I see it. But for somebody simply saying they believe it is wrong based on their religious teachings, and not calling for violence or discrimination... I just don't know what else you could expect from someone like that, short of them completely abandoning the entirety of their faith. Not everyone can handle the cognitive dissonance that comes from firmly believing some aspects of a religion while adamantly rejecting other parts of that same religion that they are uncomfortable with. It really does seem like an all or nothing affair. That's certainly how it was with me when I was religious, and it was ultimately what drove me away from religion when I realized I couldn't reconcile many things in the Bible with a loving God.

[Crunched]

There's a really old thread from when GTA San Andreas was announced that had a bunch of people saying they wouldn't be able to relate to a black main character and how the game was already ruined because of it.

Would not believe it if I hadn't seen it myself.

[Crunched]

A year and a half ago, Sony had retroactively removed the OtherOS feature in consumer's PS3 consoles, and were demanding IP address from YouTube and Slashdot for anyone who dared to view a video that contradicted its corporate mandate. This was all because George Hotz enabled homebrew to be possible on the PS3. Some people in the gaming section were demanding that George be raped for his crime against Sony. In those hundred-page-threads, there were enthusiasts literally and specifically describing fantasies in which Mr Hotz would be dragged to prison and sexually assaulted for his supposed crimes. Because he displeased their corporation. It really, really offended me. More than anything else I've seen on here, actually.

Damn, this too. That thread was the first time I realized how many actually insane people posted here. I could not understand the hate toward that guy. I thought GAF especially would love what he was doing. Getting mad about contributing openness to a platform? Still blows my mind.

[Matthew Gallant]

There was also a bunch of people in a thread about a black person writing a book about spending a year only buying from black-owned businesses, saying that it was totally racist to do that. There are some strange white people on GAF, for sure.

[KO Traveling Hobo]

A) I'm not lying when I say there are indeed tantrums thrown. I could look them up, but, really, do you REALLY need them? I think you're a reasonable guy who knows they happen. b) No, you misunderstood. The arrogance is in the act of declaring oneself to be more right than the majority JUST BECAUSE it makes you look better. It's contradictory because if you join an organization and the majority viewpoint is the OPPOSITE Of what you believe in, why are you even a part of it? As for your last point, you are correct. I haven't called any religious person who doesn't hold the bigoted beliefs of their leaders a bigot. If I have, then I was mistaken or misinterpreted, because that's not the message I want to get across. I have called them hypocrites, and I stand by that, but I do not call them things they are clearly not. I call them out for supporting an organization that promote horrible views. And while they may not PERSONALLY hold those views, defending the organization that does is almost as bad. Do you understand why I say this? You do not get to join an organization and then declare the majority viewpoint as wrong because you want it to be. Do you think that's a reasonable way to think?

a)I know they happen, but that wasn't really what was being discussed. iirc, this whole thing started with people saying that they didn't like how GAF dumps on religion all the time. That's hardly a tantrum.

b) Why do you assume that it's just because it makes them look better? Again, isn't it logical that the people without bigoted beliefs are more right than the people with them? And it's not contradictory because religion is about more than the institution.

I get where you're coming from, but it still seems counterproductive. It seems more reasonable and effective to focus on separating the good from the bad rather than labeling them all various flavors of bad.

[Crunched]

Just went back and read mclaren's/canuck's posts. I didn't realize there was anyone on GAF who thought that way. There will be no changing their minds though. They are convinced the sky is green. You can't talk to people like that. Their brains are on a different track.

[jaxword]

b) Why do you assume that it's just because it makes them look better? Again, isn't it logical that the people without bigoted beliefs are more right than the people with them? And it's not contradictory because religion is about more than the institution.

I think there's where we disagree. People SAY religion is personal, but I don't believe them. I don't because if it is truly individualistic, than the actions of the religion on the whole, INCLUDING criticism, would have no impact on the individual.

But that's not true. When I say "look better" I mean "negate the horrible things they've done." I know that you know of the horrific actions perpetuated daily due to religion. There's always at least one person who says "Well, I'm of that religion and I would never do that."

And THAT is the contradiction. Not because they wouldn't do that (they probably believe they won't) but because they think that their personal representation somehow negates the horrible acts of the whole.

It does not.

That's the crux of every religious debate, really.

Where did he say that homosexuality is similar to having sex with animals? I didn't see that part if he in fact said it.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...&postcount=367

Maclaren77 believes homosexuality is the same as raping animals (bestiality, which is obviously not consensual by any human definition.)

Canuck76 says "Yeah i stand behind that 100%. That's what i believe."

[KO Traveling Hobo]

I think there's where we disagree. People SAY religion is personal, but I don't believe them. I don't because if it is truly individualistic, than the actions of the religion on the whole, INCLUDING criticism, would have no impact on the individual. But that's not true. When I say "look better" I mean "negate the horrible things they've done." I know that you know of the horrific actions perpetuated daily due to religion. There's always at least one person who says "Well, I'm of that religion and I would never do that." And THAT is the contradiction. Not because they wouldn't do that (they probably believe they won't) but because they think that their personal representation somehow negates the horrible acts of the whole. It does not. That's the crux of every religious debate, really.

I think this is as far as we're going to get. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it still seems counterproductive to focus on that aspect.

[jaxword]

I think this is as far as we're going to get. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it still seems counterproductive to focus on that aspect.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to partially disagree and (as always in these situations) we'll have to see whose approach really produces good results in the end.