Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » 9th Grader Arrested for Bringing a Clock to School (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: 9th Grader Arrested for Bringing a Clock to School
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I said that many liberals hate Christianity."

The problem with this assertion is that it wholly depends on how you define "Christianity". I don't think many liberals hate the general love your neighbor and forgive your enemies stuff, or even normal worship and the existence of religious faith among Christians.

Are the political aims of the Religious Right identical with "Christianity"? Liberal Christians would disagree.

The statement is too vague.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"I said that many liberals hate Christianity."

The problem with this assertion is that it wholly depends on how you define "Christianity". I don't think many liberals hate the general love your neighbor and forgive your enemies stuff, or even normal worship and the existence of religious faith among Christians.

Are the political aims of the Religious Right identical with "Christianity"? Liberal Christians would disagree.

The statement is too vague.

You are right and actually that's the point. It is not specific tenets of the faith that I'm saying liberals object to. In fact the stated goals of liberalism in general have a lot in common with the stated goals of much of Christianity. You should keep what was said in context, then, which is that they hate Christianity without knowing much about it. The suggestion, then, is dislike born out of ignorance or from social-meme reputation. My comments don't hinge on exactly what kind of Christianity I'm talking about, precisely because the kinds of people I'm talking about are unspecific in their dislike (this point is addressed to Kate also). They just know it's 'evil' in some general sense.

I'll give a bit of an example of what I mean. In watching debates between liberal thinkers and Christian thinkers (of which there are MANY to be found, obviously including Dawkins among many others) you will typically hear a debate point such as "Christianity has had a net benefit for the world throughout history. Begin!" And each side will proceed. In the 'anti' side you will invariably hear mention of the crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo, slavery, gay-hating, sexual repression, and the list goes on. Some speakers such as Dawkins do make the occasional reference to Christian doctrine, but more often than not it's cursory and vacuous as a real claim about the faith. For instance Dawkins has said that the image of a man bleeding on a cross for your sins is the most disgusting thing he's ever heard of and that it's shameful to worship such an image. Out of context this is a dog whistle to liberals of how 'ugly' Christianity is at its core, but obviously it's not a fair expounding of the meaning of Jesus on the cross. If you were to ask what kind of Christianity they're debating about (which amazingly is rarely addressed) you'd have to conclude that it was probably Catholicism since things like the crusades come up. But then again since doctrinal issues are rarely discussed in depth it's hard to conclude whether any particular sect at all is really the target of the accusations. To simplify things for themselves - because let's face it, it's hard to keep track of all the different branches of Christianity - I think a lot of people think of Christianity as being one big 'thing' and lump all kinds of stuff into that one word.

Everyday liberals who are not celebrity debaters tend to take their talking points from popularized notions of what Christianity 'is about.' They will take the talking points of the Inquisition, crusades, anti-gay oppression and so forth, and take that to be what Christianity stands for. They see the religion as hateful, oppressive, and bigoted. Pete made some good points in another thread about trying to disentangle the notions of Christendom and Christianity, but let's just say that your run-of-the-mill Christianity hater isn't typically interested in this kind of parsing. In fact any attempt at such 'for the sake of argument' tends to make them upset. And don't even get me started on trying to set the record straight on Christianity's real beliefs to someone who is deadset against them. I knew many gay people in New York, for instance, who would probably have disowned me if I had said nice things about Christianity (whether I was general or specific about the sect wouldn't have mattered much to them). At best they would have said I was nuts, at worst it would have offended them deeply to even suggest such a thing.

I've seen so many people post things on FB expressing disgust with Christian beliefs; some about current events and religious freedom; some about things coming from the Vatican; some about blog articles and whatnot. I've also seen many posts about Pope Francis where these same people celebrate the fact that they perceive him as finally admitting that Christianity was wrong about all kinds of things (even though he has done no such thing). The amount of people with no legitimate interest in understanding what a thing or group is about is astounding, even though also unsurprising.

So no, liberals don't hate the "love your neighbor" stuff. But the people I'm describing would say one of a few things on that: (a) Christianity is hypocritical and doesn't really believe that. It it something to say while simultaneously being hateful in every way possible. (b) Maybe some people believe that, but the institution is rotten to the core. (c) That is code for "tell your neighbor how to live and love him if he gives in and does what you say."

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring said:
quote:
Also based on his responses to question he also does strike me as dull in the head. And this is giving him full credit in honesty.
What does dull mean? Sub-average intelligence? You call him dumb and very dumb, also suggesting that he's not able to process context, i.e., sub-normal. Is he?

Fenring said:
quote:
Best case scenario he's a total moron and scared people for no reason. Worst case scenario is the conspiracy theory; jasonr seems to be taking the middle ground on this.
What does "total moron" mean? Addled? Being a total moron is the "best case"?

Fenring said:
quote:
The moment I heard him lie about having built it himself I knew something was off, because if he actually had built it himself the story about trying to impress his teacher might hold.
No evidence has been presented by anyone that he didn't build it, and everyone agrees it was a clock. What "built" means is a matter of interpretation. What evidence is there, other than suspicion that he is too dull to have done something a little clever to impress his teacher?

Fenring said:
quote:
The kid's motives are unknown, but he had to have either been up to something or been dumb to allow things to get that far.
Had to be up to something or had to be dumb? You don't leave room for willful misinterpretation by others despite his apparent best efforts to tell the simple truth. Mark Cuban, entrepreneur and sports team owner - and now investigative reporter-, isn't much of a reliable witness for anything he said to Maher.

Fenring said:
quote:
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the content of Rafi's quote, as I basically agree with what D.W. said. Who would ever agree that the content of that quote describes them, whether it's true or not? The quote describes what is most likely an exercise in self-deception, so no kidding that people won't literally state that it's their belief. You may as well say that there are no evil people in the world because you can't find written statements by them claiming "I am evil!"
In other words, you agree with the entire quote, except the last sentence. Think about that. The entire quote is a condemnation of the "American left", not of a few people. You choose to say it only applies to some fewer people, but apply the same broad brush of anonymity and leave the association attached to the left. It's equally true that the American right hates blacks, Muslims and Hispanics, isn't it? Moreso, since there are ample quotes attributed to leading members of the right saying almost exactly those words. So I object to your characterization, but I did say that there have to be at least a very few deranged people somewhere who might think that way, but I have never met them. How many people have you met who you think believe what the quote says?

Fenring said:
quote:
I think a lot of liberal attitudes towards minorities aren’t actually based on the good of the minorities, but how good it makes the liberals feel to champion them.
What does it mean to say "a lot of liberal attitudes"? Are you attacking "liberalism" instead of "liberals", in which case you don't mean that liberals think that way. That would be like your claim that liberals hate Christianity, but that doesn't mean they hate Christians. But if you mean actual liberal individuals, can you put a number or percentage of all liberals that would apply to? Using a broad brush as you have done invites one to wonder what exactly you mean.

I'll stop there. Basically, you use a fuzzy pen to negatively characterize the boy and liberals, but duck every time it comes back to you to own up to it. If you don't see that, you should at least think about it a little. You did something similar in another thread where you praised Trump, but objected whenever I tried to pin down what you were actually saying.

If you don't like being challenged, be more careful in how you phrase things. For my part, I will delete 2/3 of all the posts I might direct towards you instead of the 1/2 I've been deleting so far.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, thanks for the explanation.

If the phrase "Christianity is hypocritical" makes any sense in this context, I'm not sure you can simultaneously draw a distinction between Christianity and Christians.

I'm also not sure that I would agree with the notion that people who fixate on harm done by Christian institutions are ignorant of what Christianity is. Rather, they prefer to think that the good beliefs and practices of Christians are not inherent to those institutions.

But if you're mainly saying that a good chunk of liberals are kind of kneejerk and dumb about people they think are on the other team, then you're right. I'm about to quit a liberal Facebook group because I'm sick of that phenomenon.

[ September 25, 2015, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the content of Rafi's quote, as I basically agree with what D.W. said. Who would ever agree that the content of that quote describes them, whether it's true or not? The quote describes what is most likely an exercise in self-deception, so no kidding that people won't literally state that it's their belief. You may as well say that there are no evil people in the world because you can't find written statements by them claiming "I am evil!"
________________________________________
In other words, you agree with the entire quote, except the last sentence. Think about that

I know you aren’t talking to me, but as I’m part of this point I’ll say it again. Yes, I agree with the entire quote, except the last sentence. I caveat-ed that statement by saying I didn’t think it stood for the majority but Rafi’s quote didn’t say majority either so it was only a point of clarification. I think it was “significant amount” but I’m too lazy to scroll back and check and even if it didn’t I’m losing faith that it matters.

“It's equally true that the American right hates blacks, Muslims and Hispanics, isn't it?” A “significant portion” of them? Sure, that’s true as well.

Your repudiation of Rafi’s quote comes off as denial that it EVER happens or could apply to ANYONE. Welcome back to Ornery from your time away.

You are wrong. (incase you forgot)

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Careful:
quote:
Everyday liberals who are not celebrity debaters tend to take their talking points from popularized notions of what Christianity 'is about.'
Your everyday liberal is, odds on at least nominally a Christian, even if not a devout one.

And trust me, even amount the atheistic liberal segments, there isn't a lot of love for folks like Dawkins outside of where he supports their specific biases.

There is a lot of animosity toward Christianity among the atheistic and neo-pagan elements of liberalism to be sure. But the odd case of the Ron/Rand Paul aside, there is no less animosity among the atheistic objectivist/libertarian camps as well.

I think there's more of an academic bias at times, that's highlighted by the tendency of many religious liberals to be quiet about their faith, but even there you're talking about a smaller subset.

What does really confound the issue is that liberals, on balance, tend to be for a stronger separation of church and state, or at least, where separation doesn't fully work, pushing for accommodations for diverse views, even among Christian liberals.

That is what conservative Christians most often try to portray as "hatred" of Christianity, where it really is just a acknowledgement and effort to move away from affording Christianity a privileged position in our society that excludes others from participating on an equal basis.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the only reason the Christian Liberal doesn't fight back loudly against the Atheist/Other Liberals is we (if I can still include myself in the group) get it even worse from the Christian Conservatives for not being "real Christians".

You should never let the extremists hijack your whole party. We only got 2 to pick from after all...

[ September 25, 2015, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would we fight the Atheist/Other Liberals about?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Fenring, thanks for the explanation.

If the phrase "Christianity is hypocritical" makes any sense in this context, I'm not sure you can simultaneously draw a distinction between Christianity and Christians.

I agree that in making a rigorous claim that it would be wrong to conflate "Christianity is hypocritical" with "Christians are hypocritical." If doing so is an error then I'm confident that many people do indeed make this very error. In reality it would be more proper to say that many Christians are bad Christians, just as in bringing up anti-Christian sentiment I'm observing that many liberals are bad liberals. I think it's just a human thing, that many people will be poor at living the things they claim to believe in.

quote:
I'm also not sure that I would agree with the notion that people who fixate on harm done by Christian institutions are ignorant of what Christianity is. Rather, they prefer to think that the good beliefs and practices of Christians are not inherent to those institutions.
In a way I think they compartmentalize Christianity from the actual Christians that make it up. There seems to be a tendency in popular culture of speaking about Christianity as this monolithic thing, rather than as a group of people who believe certain things. To the extent that Christianity as an organization has some structure and some power, its system of organization does actually exist outside of the fact of its individual believers. This is why I brought of Christendom, since a lot of the negative PR the religion has can be traced back to that. I guess some for of Christendom still exists to whatever extent the Vatican owns property and has material power, but obviously it's not a huge issue on a world scale any more.

quote:
But if you're mainly saying that a good chunk of liberals are kind of kneejerk and dumb about people they think are on the other team, then you're right. I'm about to quit a liberal Facebook group because I'm sick of that phenomenon.
Pretty much. I'm not a Christian despite having some interest in reading about the religion from time to time, and I guess as a thinker it offends me when I hear smears against what are effectively good people trying to live good lives. I just don't like hearing low-hanging-fruit remarks about religious groups in a snarky echo-chamber way. I think there are some legitimate things to object to in how Christians have chosen to interact with others at various times, but noting those objections doesn't make me feel better when I hear from Christian friends who have to deal with anti-Christian bile all the time.

It's a de facto premise in modern liberal-speak that a majority group by definition can't be oppressed and doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy when they get a little in return. But when someone tells me they're sad because they hear nasty things spoken about their beliefs, I don't see a majority or an oppressor; I see an individual whose views are maligned as a part of pop culture.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea what YOU would fight Atheist/Other Liberals about. My “fights” typically amount to telling them, “If they aren’t making any impositions on you, why must you be so insulting?” I tend to let most of the generalized criticism of Catholics go because; A: I agree with some of it. B: The people spouting it want mostly the same things I do. C: They are just as pig headed and unwilling to consider another view point as any far right conservative of the jerk variety.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
What does it mean to say "a lot of liberal attitudes"? Are you attacking "liberalism" instead of "liberals", in which case you don't mean that liberals think that way. That would be like your claim that liberals hate Christianity, but that doesn't mean they hate Christians. But if you mean actual liberal individuals, can you put a number or percentage of all liberals that would apply to? Using a broad brush as you have done invites one to wonder what exactly you mean.

In my opinion the quote could do with cleaning up that phrase to read "a lot of the beliefs of liberals" rather than "a lot of liberal beliefs." However I think the general sense of the point remains similar either way.

I won't respond to your other points because they've pretty much been answered already. I don't know why but you've adopted a sophistic manner of discussion where you try to undermine things I say by either picking at individual words or by trying to prove I've refused to specify what I mean. You even outright misquoted me and haven't owned up to it, and when I corrected you you objected sarcastically. You even requested I answer a question 'without weaseling', which I can only attribute to your innate belief that anyone who would agree with such a quote is a weasel and will not answer honestly. You should really be careful about falling straight into the "agree with me or you're an idiot" camp.

In short I don't particularly think you're engaging on this topic in good faith, and I don't think you're paying much care to trying to see what others are saying. If you don't respect what others are saying then there is no discussion possible; only 'arguing points' can be a result. Remember Pyr's liberal-oriented dictum that the best course is to really listen to what others are saying? You should take his advice on that one.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
I do.
I give up.
I'll take you at your word that you meant this, because on this end it does feel like you gave up.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I have no idea what YOU would fight Atheist/Other Liberals about. My “fights” typically amount to telling them, “If they aren’t making any impositions on you, why must you be so insulting?” I tend to let most of the generalized criticism of Catholics go because; A: I agree with some of it. B: The people spouting it want mostly the same things I do. C: They are just as pig headed and unwilling to consider another view point as any far right conservative of the jerk variety.

Okay. I would go along with A and B. But doesn't that contradict what you posted earlier?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have no idea. What two things contradict?

Also, I'm glad you will go along with my assessment of my acquaintances who likely you don't know. [Wink]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I just don't like hearing low-hanging-fruit remarks about religious groups in a snarky echo-chamber way. I think there are some legitimate things to object to in how Christians have chosen to interact with others at various times, but noting those objections doesn't make me feel better when I hear from Christian friends who have to deal with anti-Christian bile all the time.

It's a de facto premise in modern liberal-speak that a majority group by definition can't be oppressed and doesn't deserve anyone's sympathy when they get a little in return. But when someone tells me they're sad because they hear nasty things spoken about their beliefs, I don't see a majority or an oppressor; I see an individual whose views are maligned as a part of pop culture.

Where are your friends that they are constantly subjected to anti-Christian vile? I am a Catholic who lives in an uber liberal suburb of a very blue city in a blue state. I work at a university - a bastion of liberal and rational thought. I pretty much have to come here to be reminded that Conservatives exist and I am nothing like bombarded with anti-Christian bile.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think most of us are referring to social media though a lot of my friends are happy to speak their mind and say hurtful things to those they believe deserve being taken down a few pegs. Typically this is done in the security of like minded (or like enough) company.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I have no idea. What two things contradict?

Also, I'm glad you will go along with my assessment of my acquaintances who likely you don't know. [Wink]

That the "only reason the Christian Liberal doesn't fight back loudly against the Atheist/Other Liberals is we (if I can still include myself in the group) get it even worse from the Christian Conservatives for not being 'real Christians'".

Both A and B are other reasons, yes? And I wasn't making any judgement about your friends; I was just noting that A and B are also reasons I don't see a need to fight with Atheist/Other Liberals. I agree with them on some of it and we are on the same side of most issues.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are reasons not to speak up in defense of those attempting to malign a faith I still associate somewhat with / self-identify as.

I may agree that belief in strict creationism is "silly" but I don’t like seeing it being used as a bludgeon to label all Christians as stupid and gullible anti-science nuts.

Suppose I didn't do a good job articulating that. I don't "fight" them on it, because it's really not worth my time and explaining the nuance that you can have faith and still reject some of the "silly things". That is lost on some of them.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, no one uses it to bludgeon me as being a stupid and gullible anti-science nut because I also think that strict creationism is silly. And the people that believe it are, if not stupid and gullible anti-science nuts, at least one or the other.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I think most of us are referring to social media though a lot of my friends are happy to speak their mind and say hurtful things to those they believe deserve being taken down a few pegs. Typically this is done in the security of like minded (or like enough) company.

D.W. is correct, I mean mostly this. A lot of it is social media or offhand conversations. There is also the occasional formal debate where the 'anti' side tends to make echo-chamber points rather than address substantive issues in Christianity, and this in turn leads many people to conclude that the talking points are all the content that needs to be addressed. There is also the matter of TV having quite a few talk shows and others kinds of shows (like sitcoms) that outright make fun of Christianity on a regular basis. This latter type of satire I wouldn't call 'bile' in the same sense of hatred, but I do think that it helps to further rile up people to dislike Christianity.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You missed it, or I'm still not communicating well.

X idiotic thing is part of B. Therefore all people in B are idiots.

MOST people I know, don't think that way. Some of them do. Now that I think about it. That statement above applies to people I know on both sides of the atheist/Chrisitan Right/Left divides.

something something cast no stones

[ September 25, 2015, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, the remedy for that is to be Christian without being a hate-filled moron and to keep saying, "Not all Christians". I don't take it personally as I know that when they are talking about a certain kind of Christian, they don't mean me.

[ September 25, 2015, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my opinion the quote could do with cleaning up that phrase to read "a lot of the beliefs of liberals" rather than "a lot of liberal beliefs."
This is a pretty good example of what I mean. You try to take a step back from one statement with another one that can be easily seen to mean the same thing. Aren't beliefs of liberals liberal beliefs if only liberals believe them?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I think most of us are referring to social media though a lot of my friends are happy to speak their mind and say hurtful things to those they believe deserve being taken down a few pegs. Typically this is done in the security of like minded (or like enough) company.

D.W. is correct, I mean mostly this. A lot of it is social media or offhand conversations. There is also the occasional formal debate where the 'anti' side tends to make echo-chamber points rather than address substantive issues in Christianity, and this in turn leads many people to conclude that the talking points are all the content that needs to be addressed. There is also the matter of TV having quite a few talk shows and others kinds of shows (like sitcoms) that outright make fun of Christianity on a regular basis. This latter type of satire I wouldn't call 'bile' in the same sense of hatred, but I do think that it helps to further rile up people to dislike Christianity.
This is more a statement about groupthink or mob egging on, not a statement of any underlying socio/political perspective. There's a fair amount of "herd"-speak here on Ornery, too.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this the part that I give up? I don't even know what we are debating/arguing anymore.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
In my opinion the quote could do with cleaning up that phrase to read "a lot of the beliefs of liberals" rather than "a lot of liberal beliefs."
This is a pretty good example of what I mean. You try to take a step back from one statement with another one that can be easily seen to mean the same thing. Aren't beliefs of liberals liberal beliefs if only liberals believe them?
I mean specifically this: "beliefs of liberals" meaning the beliefs of individual people, and "liberal beliefs" being more ambiguous and potentially meaning general beliefs held by liberalism. My comment is therefore meant to communicate that I think the original quote would have served itself a little better by referring to foibles in individuals rather than a hole in general liberal theory.

Also your thrown-in assertion that I was trying to "step back" from some statement is a needless ad-hominem.

[ September 25, 2015, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW: Consider that if you went to a different "liberal" forum the voices would probably sound very different. For instance, do any liberals here sound like the social media group you referred to?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean specifically this: "beliefs of liberal" meaning the beliefs of individual people, and "liberal beliefs" being more ambiguous and potentially meaning general beliefs held by liberalism. My comment is therefore meant to communicate that I think the original quote would have served itself a little better by referring to foibles in individuals rather than a hole a general liberal theory.
You can't see me, but my brow is furrowed because I still don't get it.
quote:
Also your thrown-in assertion that I was trying to "step back" from some statement is a needless ad-hominem.
I don't think so, else why quibble with what you already agreed to? Also, that's not what an ad-hominem is. Feel free to restate your objection in other words.

[ September 25, 2015, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
DW: Consider that if you went to a different "liberal" forum the voices would probably sound very different. For instance, do any liberals here sound like the social media group you referred to?

No.
I mean, even if I thought so, I'd still say No. But I don't, so No.
/walks slowly out of the room.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with what you said, even the part about walking out of the room.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll say it. Some of the more social justice types here have a habit of automatically assuming the worst of conservative (or even just non liberal) viewpoints and people. And vice versa. They're not shy about it, either. There are rules here and no one directly calls another poster a Nazi or a baby killing commie or whatever, we just slap those labels on people outside of the forum who just so happen to share the ideas or beliefs of the people who are being spoken to.

I would guess that forum members here, on average, are more intelligent then the twitter and Facebook crowd. The only other differences that I can see are that we're all willing to write essays to argue about things.

Oh. And we don't insult each other. Directly.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
I find it a little annoying that the social mob has ignored zero tolerance rules in schools right up until some Muslim kid gets nailed by them.

On the basis that you haven't been paying attention to ongoing complaints about it until this incident made you aware of them? THis has been something complainted about for so long that people simply take for granted that anyone reasonable thinks its absurd.
Poptart gun kid was in the news for all of a day, and there were no protests or social media for them. And he's hardly the only one, is there? Children have been getting bent over a barrel due to zero tolerance procedures since Columbine, never mind 9/11.

This was blown up all over the media. Was it because of stupid policy that has been taken too far, and has caught up kids of all races? No, of course not. Like you said, no one can bring themselves to care about that. It's boring.

Make the story into one where there is suspected racism? It blows up.

Nevermind just fixing the underlaying problem, the zero tolerance.

I for one think that if this kid was white, he would have been treated the same.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I for one think that if this kid was white, he would have been treated the same.
If you mean treated the same by the school, I don't think so. I've cited a few things (about the mayor and city council) and even Rafi chimed in with a depiction of his older sister having previously been suspended for 3 days for telling another girl that she wanted to blow up the school. I think that Irving, TX has a problem with certain types of people, and Ahmed fits the type very well. He also fits the conservative fantasy for a budding Muslim terrorist. Little Timmy Johnson wouldn't have had to face the same skepticism and arrest, IMO.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Poptart gun kid wasn't arrested. Suspended which would have been stupid but apparently the suspension followed a pattern of disruptive behavior. Still, I think, not the best way to handle a seven year-old.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Show me a "liberal" who hates Christians for the reasons I gave and yet loves Muslims who do those things? I triple-dog dare you. Because you can't. Any liberal that hates those things hate them regardless of who is trying to impose them.

You might have a point if I'd actually said that, but I didn't. I said "defends". As for showing you that, look no further than this thread.


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Muslims aren't trying to impose Sharia law in this country...

Yes, they are. There's just not enough yet to make it happen. Try googling it rather than assuming.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You might have a point if I'd actually said that, but I didn't. I said "defends".
But here's the thing: liberals defend those people, not their (almost entirely hypothetical) attempts to impose Sharia law.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
You might have a point if I'd actually said that, but I didn't. I said "defends".
But here's the thing: liberals defend those people, not their (almost entirely hypothetical) attempts to impose Sharia law.
I think the determining question has to be: Would a liberal who freely mocks Christianity to a Christian's face mock Islam to a Muslim's face? How about on TV?

What people like Maher and others are talking about is that liberals ostensibly hold Christianity to a higher standard than Islam and prevaricate on making the same judgmental pronouncements (right or wrong) about Islam. The term "Islamophobia" is a defence mechanism designed to prevent - or might I say, defend against - people speaking out against Islam or the people that practice that religion.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the determining question has to be: Would a liberal who freely mocks Christianity to a Christian's face mock Islam to a Muslim's face?
I think it probably depends on the liberal. I know I would and have.

quote:
The term "Islamophobia" is a defence mechanism designed to prevent - or might I say, defend against - people speaking out against Islam or the people that practice that religion.
No, I don't think so. You look at people like Richard Dawkins, for example, who're otherwise rational except on the topic of Islam, and you see shades of Kim Davis on the topic of homosexuality. The question is whether Dawkins' fear and loathing is rational, of course, and I think it's pretty provably not.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair, Dawkins is perhaps the most well-known outspoken atheist who regularly makes his opinions known in the media. He calls himself a humanist, which I think is a better (less pejorative) term, since he is passionately concerned about human ethics but rejects using faith as the basis for policy.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the determining question has to be: Would a liberal who freely mocks Christianity to a Christian's face mock Islam to a Muslim's face?
Well, no. I'll mock Christians, well Anglicans and maybe Catholics, to their face because I feel affiliated with that tribe (I know them well enough to get their in-jokes). I wouldn't mock a Muslim 'cause I couldn't do it without being a dick.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I completely agree with that comment, except to substitute "Jews" for "Anglicans and maybe Catholics".
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1