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 » The Murdered Amish Girls and The Church of Hate (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: The Murdered Amish Girls and The Church of Hate
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To KE: I hope you're serious, and if so, thank you. (still a little jumpy. Bad mood lately. Eh heh.)
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Gotta call you on that strawman, Paladine. These things are not natural, or base. They are perversions of the norm. When the majority of the population of the world is engaging in these things, then you will have a point.
Firstly, just a pet peeve: the word straw man refers to a specific logical fallacy in which a person attempts to discredit his opponent's point of view by focusing on non-existent or extremely weak supporting arguments for it, while ignoring his most pursuasive points. That isn't what you seem to be saying Paladine did... so why call it a straw man? Why not just say he's wrong?

And on the perversion point... I agree that the things he mentioned were perversions of a norm, namely our society's norm. However, in point of fact, there have been, and continue to be societies in existence where, for example, a 25 year old having sex with a 12 year old would not be uncommon. That activity would not be outside their norm. There are all sorts of norms out there that don't agree with our own. So the distinction between natural things outside this "norm" you speak of, versus those within it, is deceptive at best, and arguably a meaningless one.

Paladine's point, (and I agree with him) is that there are numerous things that many humans do that are completely natural for them to do, and yet we consider it a good thing that society tells them not to do them, and that we suppress these things. Just because something is natural or even normal, does not make it good.

quote:
I'm gonna be knee deep in that tonight!
You only say that one if you have an overly inflated... err ego...
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am serious.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr:

"Paladine's point, (and I agree with him) is that there are numerous things that many humans do that are completely natural for them to do, and yet we consider it a good thing that society tells them not to do them, and that we suppress these things. Just because something is natural or even normal, does not make it good. "

You're right that there are things which are completely natural, which should be suppressed. Yet those are the things, at least mostly, which harm other people. If your actions harm others, even if they are "natural" then of course they shouldn't be tolerated.

yet there are plenty of things that do NOT cause such harm, yet are natural, that many belief systems still force people to feel guilt and shame over. I do not accept causing people to feel shame over such things is in any way good.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes measuring harm is difficult. If I believe it causes harm and I plead with people not to do it, people may inadvertently feel guilt or shame. So should I never state what I feel is hurting people for fear of causing someone guilt or shame?

What about things that affect or may affect the environment? If it sufficiently "hurts" the environment it hurts us all. Many of the things that religions warn against that don't seem to hurt any outside individual are things that hurt the culture, the environment that we all live in.

quote:
0Meg's point, and I have come to the same conclusion, is that sexual desire is a natural and important part of the reproductive process and there is no reason at all to shame people for it. Marriage may be a supior way to raise children, but 98% of the time people have sex for fun, not reproduction. If you can have sex responsibly, there's just no need to sweat bullets over it, and feeling constantly guilty about what you are is unhealthy.
Except that it's not always an either or situation. Most religions don't teach that sex is either for reproduction or something to sweat bullets over and feel constantly guilty about. Religions that teach that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage aren't proposing that false dichotomy.

If people preach to me how bad eating veal and driving suburbans are they aren't necessarily saying I should sweat bullets over it and constantly feel guilty about it.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
And Tommmy, as a gentlemen felon and a friend I think I should advise you not to use the term "banging" in reference to your girlfriend, unless she's into that kinda of talk. "Making Love" is too icky, but having sex or being with her are perfctly acceptable substitutes.

Also you probably shouldn't say in her presence; "I'm gonna tap that ass!" or "I'm gonna nail that tonight!" or, "I'm gonna tear that up" or "I'm gonna be knee deep in that tonight!", etc.

However, I'm old and still believe in chivalry so I could be out of touch.

KE

lol. Usually when I say something like that, it is in jest. As it was meant above. I'm kind of shy, so saying, "I'm gonna tear that sh*t up" to my girlfriend would not be part of my vocabulary. Unless if I was under the influence, or completely joking around.

Edited to add: Sorry it took me so long to respond, I was KNEE DEEP... at work.

But I think being 'balls deep' is the term more commonly used. I imagine that wouldn't hurt as much... [Eek!]

[ October 08, 2006, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: TommySama ]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa M.
Member
Member # 2398

 - posted      Profile for Lisa M.   Email Lisa M.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the radio host did the right thing. I hope he was able to warn his listeners ahead of time about it.

Personally, I wouldn't wish Fred Phelps's church/family's wrath on anyone, especially a family who just lost their child.

I just wonder if Phelps really thinks that his tactics are going to win over any new followers.

I mean, there's a reason his church is comprised primarily of his own family members. (Last time I read anything about it, I think it was 85%-90%. If you check it out on his own website, he reports it as like 70%, but apparently he doesn't count people who have been married in or something like that. Aaaand I'm tired and making no sense.).

Posts: 845 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The radio host supposedly made periodic announcements that the views expressed were those of the Westboro Baptist Church, and not necessarily his own nor those of his station.

While Fred Phelps seems to have been a loose cannon for some thirty years, the official policies of his church toward individual homosexuals seem standard enough for fundamentalist Christians, as illustrated by the FAQ on their website:
quote:
What would you do if a homosexual attended your church?
Regardless of any person's private conduct, we would do unto them as we would have them do unto us. By a fear of God, we would declare the whole counsel of God to them, lest their blood should be on our hands. We would share the Gospel (good news) with them, and we would treat them like we would treat any other person on this earth. We would treat them with kindness, and follow those scriptural injunctions that require that we preach the gospel to every creature.

The urgency of their preaching comes largely from a conviction that the end of the world is very near, which has been a common Christian belief for centuries, and obviously wrong every time. I was amused to hear a spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses declare that his sect has been mistaken so many times it no longer makes official predictions.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I was amused to hear a spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses declare that his sect has been mistaken so many times it no longer makes official predictions."

If only everybody would give it up. After all, Jesus even said that nobody would expect it, and there'd be no signs beforehand. So why do they insist on not listening to Christ, again, exactly?

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IIRC, there would be signs before the Second Coming: war and rumors of war, drought, famine, pestilence, earthquakes in diverse places, etc.

In other words, the same old stuff that's been happening for the last 2000 years. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good point. [Big Grin]

Though, the Apocalypse of John was only one of many works of that genre that were made in those few centuries before and after the birth of Christ.

In fact, another one, the Apocalypse of Peter, almost got the nod instead of John. Considering the nature of it... somehow I doubt Revelation is an actual prophecy of the future. Instead, it was talking about current events, and in a style that was familiar to the people at the time.

Then again, even if it's true, I'd take Christ's word over St. John's word any day. [Big Grin] I dunno, just the whole... human/God difference, ya know?

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
jasonr wrote:
Firstly, just a pet peeve: the word straw man refers to a specific logical fallacy in which a person attempts to discredit his opponent's point of view by focusing on non-existent or extremely weak supporting arguments for it, while ignoring his most pursuasive points. That isn't what you seem to be saying Paladine did... so why call it a straw man? Why not just say he's wrong?

He was arguing against a position that nobody had taken. I interpreted that to be a straw man fallacy. If you can think of a better description of it, I will defer to you.

quote:
I agree that the things he mentioned were perversions of a norm, namely our society's norm. However, in point of fact, there have been, and continue to be societies in existence where, for example, a 25 year old having sex with a 12 year old would not be uncommon.
Let me clarify what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about society, or culture. I am talking about basic human drives that have been cultivated in our species through natural selection, such as hunger to motivate us to eat and sexual drive to motivate us to reproduce.

The examples Paladine and yourself have given are much higher level than what I am talking out. Even in the case of a mentally deranged person who rapes or kills, they are responding to a defect in their biology, not responding to a basic human drive. That is the distinction I am making.

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"IIRC"

Huh?

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"IIRC"

Huh?

If I Recall Correctly
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I might as well make an on-topic post in this thread [Cool]

I say what the radio host did was a perfectly good idea, and may very well backfire on Fred Phelps and his ilk. The best way to discredit crazy bigots like the Westboro Baptists is to tell people everything you can about them.

Do you know one of the ways the KKK became scorned by the public? The Superman radio show made several broadcasts involving them, and told the world what those people really believed. An organization loses a lot of their power when they lose control over how people are exposed to their ideas.

[ October 10, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Adam Lassek ]

Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Adam. [Cool]

Interesting point. However, I'm not sure how many people subjected
themselves to that crap.
As has been pointed out; they are nowhere near as big as the Klan was.
Nor as subtle. [Frown]

KE

[ October 10, 2006, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

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