Disclaimer: I came across these posts this morning (I didn't see them before) and got a bit tilted, but decided to give it the better part of the day to make sure it wasn't just Blonde Rage Mode Argument Time acting up. I dwelled up on it, and too much just didn't add up, so here we go:
Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
Blonde, I'm as much of an atheist as you. But as others have pointed out, you give atheism a very bad rap when you are so forceful about it. Trying to argue logic and facts with somebody who believes in fairy tales actually makes YOU look stupid. Using simple lines like "You're an adult and have an imaginary friend" is far more affective.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
Effective. And in any case, I'm quoting this for the retarded sentiment. Up above, i'm fucking around on Saint Patty's day. In most religious discussions I have, I try to reason with people, but I fail to see how that makes me look stupid. Although I am a fan of the quote "you can't reason people out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into", I refuse to believe that it's impossible to change people's minds.
You may disagree with my methods, but at least I'm making a solid effort. You are effectively cutting off all constructive (and usually fun) discussion from the very beginning. For someone who I know takes an interest in debate and logical fallacies, i'm surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from you. Very amateur.
|
- F3lix says I look stupid for debating religion. (An insult.)
- F3lix apparently regularly retorts with "yeah, well stop believing in fairy tales lol" as his standard response to religious ferver. While I believe as much as the next guy that these are, in fact, a form of fairy tale or mythology, bringing it up in this form is the most intellectually weak form of debating religion (the shrug off, where you aren't actually engaging anyone but instead condescending and
insulting them by insinuating they have the minds of children, rather than attempt to
actually provide evidence against their case. That's why I called the sentiment retarded, and you amateur.
- F3lix then goes on to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
Blonde, the pro-religion opponents in debates are mentally handicapped and it's just not worth the effort. Same thing with politics. It's a waste of time to argue, though most people fall for it constantly (including me.) To show you this, I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it, since you are more concerned about insulting me than actually arguing your case.
|
- In effect, you called me stupid, insinuated that pro-religion people had the mental capacity of children and retards, and then had the gall to claim that I'm "more concerned with insulting you" than arguing my case (which you said you wasn't worth the effort, in politics or religion).
Shrugging aside the hypocritical "omg you're insulting me so i'm stopping this conversation" statement, I understand to a degree how arguing for religion and politics can be seen as "unimportant" for small lay-persons like ourselves, but at it's core debate and argument exists to change minds and help expose people to truth rather than shallow emotional half-truths or lies. I disagree 100% that it's not worth the effort, and if it weren't for people much more capable than myself arguing politics and religion we would be in a much less intelligent and oppressed world.
On a separate note, is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterKid
I actually think the bigger issue is dropping "Fuck", etc., on someone's Facebook wall. UB hinted to the fact that he is "friends" with his 13 year old niece, and it's possible he doesn't want to expose her to foul language. Which is justifiable btw Blonde. Or it's possible that UB doesn't want his Facebook wall to portray him negatively in the eyes of employers, parents, friends' parents, whatever. What's lost is that, paradoxically, however public it may be, Facebook and every other form of social media are an extension of the user and thus should be treated as a form of (semi)private property. To me, writing something profane on someone's Facebook wall is almost the equivalent of vandalizing someone's front yard. Yea the social media user can delete whatever was posted, but in reality dozens, hundreds, thousands (in Blonde's case) of people might see what was posted before it's removed.
What would be wrong with leaving out a few curse words? Honestly, "Shut up Jeffrey, St. Patrick was a zealot" probably wouldn't have elicited as much rebuke.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
Now ^^THAT^^ is an issue to debate.
|
For starters, F3lix would apparently rather debate the use of swearwords on the internet than religion or politics. Amazing.
@SinisterKid, I respectfully disagree. While I do think in actual (and I don't know how many times I have to tell you guys I was just trolling with the Saint Patricks post) debates personal insults and swearwords are not only pointless but indicate one has already lost the debate, I certainly to not equivocate swearing on somebody's Facebook wall as the same as damaging someone's private property. That line of thought is dangerously treading on freedom of speech.
At best, it compares to me drunkenly yelling "FUCK!" really loudly at party UB is throwing, which would warrant pretty much the same treatment he used in this thread. UB may be temporarily embarrassed/pissed at me, but anybody who thinks a drunken mischievous party-goer's actions directly reflect on UB as a person is kind of retarded.
Especially when they're just fucking around.
It fucking amazes me how "foul language" is still even a god damn frowned upon concept in the year 2011.
hopefully the predictable "didn't read's" and "shitheap imo" posts don't happen