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 » I think it boils down to this: OSC

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: I think it boils down to this: OSC
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would OSC say something like
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is a bigoted claim."
or
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is a hateful claim."
or
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is tantamount to blood libel."
Because if he would say those sorts of things, then punishing those statements would prove that OSC was right when he said that Ornery has become a place where people are persecuted for sharing OSC's views.

I respect that many people here passionately disagree with those statements. But one person has made Ornery the sort of environment where such statements would be subject to sanctions.

And that is beneath contempt.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And that is beneath contempt.
The burial will be held as soon as we muster enough contempt for it to be beaneath.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree. While there are no doubt people here who would react against such statements, it's by no means the 'group consensus' that they are false and should be attacked.

OSC seemed to be of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of people here would persecute those who share his views. It's only a minority. Basically, people are passionate on a small number of subjects, and everyone probably has one subject on which they are passionate, entirely divorced from reality and immune to argument.

If you post your views often enough, you will find someone to disagree violently and incoherently with you on just about all of them - it will just be a different person each time.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OSC seemed to be of the opinion that the overwhelming majority of people here would persecute those who share his views.
I don't recall OSC saying anything about majority or about "group consensus." Sanctions don't require group consensus. An influential minority is perfectly capable of persecuting less influential minority.

I respect and value disagreement, especially passionate disagreement. Richard Dey and I violently disagree with almost all of each others' beliefs, but that's never a problem; we don't go trying to get each other kicked off the board. Disagreement is not persecution. Even incoherent violent disagreement is not persecution. Trying to silence an ideological opponent through pressure, threats, and official sanctions, is persecution.

[ April 09, 2006, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
Pete, out of interest, what sort of banning would not constitute persecution?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A clear violation of unambiguous and consistently enforced rules.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
*laugh* And while I'm at it, I'd also like a pony.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You asked for an example. I delivered. If you don't think that selective prosecution is wrong, then I'm not sure what you're doing with an ACLU membership.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the problem Pete, all three versions of your statement above are subjective as far as any reader is concerned. You can agree or simply disagree with every single iteration.

The only testable or debatable part of any of those statements is the front end. Because all of the back end parts of the statements can only be judged subjectively based upon the factual evaluation of the front end of the statement.

So You have to determine whether or not the Nazi Party was a Christian Organization or not. And depending upon when you care to measure this fact will determine whether it is true or not.

1930 AD

The Nazi Party was pretty much anti all religion.

Therefore you could claim the statement to be bigoted hateful or any other such descriptor because the front end of the statement is pretty much false.

1932 The Nazi Party was pretty much pro christianity unless it was part of the formal Christian Political parties trying to get elected.


So you could argue either way that the Nazis were a christian organization at the time or not.


1936 Wait it gets stranger still---by this point the Nazis were anti Jewish and played up the ancient divisions between Jews and Christians to legitimize Nazi political and governmental policy.

1939 Its pretty funny here as well Because before the War, Nazi propaganda was pretty much preaching the gospel of the volkish community and the new german worker, then Suddenly it is September & every single political leader and military officer was hailing God's gift to the German people to have finally defeated the mongrel Huns of Poland who had threatened the Christian German nation for centuries.

1943 Get thee to Church and Pray for the Good Nazi Party so that it may Win in Russia.

1944 God has abandoned the Nazi party.

1945 God has persecuted the Nazi party to the point of failure.

The point is Pete you can't automatically agree with any of the three sentences you wrote above because each one would be completely different depending upon when you are reflecting upon the Christian status of the Nazis.

In General the Nazis were considered, and considered themselves to be a Christian party. But at times they were totally not Christian Parties. And at times they were pretty much doing their best to screw over Christianity.

I also would be pointing out to OSC that while in general comparing anything to Nazis tends to be pure insult, on Ornery we pretty much are already debating brass tacks, Everyone isn't trying to insult, instead everyone is likely trying to determine if a statement is either factually true or false.

I just don't know of him ever saying specifically that he thinks the membership of Ornery is generally made up of people who would persecute his personal views. And even though most of us here have found many disagreements with his World Watch essays, its almost exclusively because of glaring logic errors, factually deficient content, or a screaming ignorance of facts that outright dispute overwhelmingly his point of argument. Often I agree with his general view but cannot support his argument because it simply isn't logical when based on the factual support he presents.

Frankly, OSC would get thrashed as regularly as anyone else on Ornery does, if he were still brave enough to post in the general forum. People wouldn't be blasting him for his beliefs, but rather his loose logic and factual discrepancies. Come o think of it, he would pretty much get slammed by many posters if he weren't careful. Not because of his views or belief in anything in particular, but rather due to inept logic and factual flaws.

All I can say is that you made a statement which other people found problematic. You made an initial error in declaring something in sweeping and absolute terms. Someone pointed out exceptions, and since their were so many exceptions pointed out that your original absolute statement could at best really be just a generalization of Nazi party policy through its entire history. Thats all.

No one was really into an argument over is calling Nazi's Christians an insult to Christians or even an insult to Nazis. Its just that if your overall argument about atheists getting no respect was depending upon the fact that Nazis were or were not a Christian organization, you might want to restrict what time period you were looking at as to the Nazi party behavior.

It's that simple realize what's the issue. No one cares less over whether Nazi is or isn't bigoted or even how insulted a Christian should or should not be if called a Nazi. People are simply pointing out that your referral to a generalization about Nazis is pretty damn suspect. All you had to do was get far more specific, acknowledge that there was ample evidence to support the contrary view and move on with the thread topic.

No one is arguing against either your belief or your right to express your belief. What people are having a huge problem with is that your argument seems to have a dependancy upon a statement which is so easy to not only dispute, but also refute with factual content.

I sooo give up.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Oh, I think just it's amusing that you'd look for those things on Ornery, which has steadfastly refused to document any unambiguous rules for the length of its existence. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Here is the problem Pete, all three versions of your statement above are subjective as far as any reader is concerned. You can agree or simply disagree with every single iteration.

Why is that a problem? There's no rule against making subjective statements. There's nothing wrong with saying something that others can disagree with.

Trying to get someone disciplined over a difference of opinion is censorship and persecution. And this is precisely what OSC has complained about. People who agree with OSC on certain topics like marriage are singled out for persecution.

Things have gotten better. We don't see much of the sort of classic cluster-fracking that some of the old-timers used to pull on those that they thought had crossed the line socially or ideologically. The forum that we have today is better than Ornery has ever been.

But Ev's personal jihad against me is a lingering poison. He's said openly on the board that he's out to get me banned, he's promised openly on the board to "stalk" my posts across threads until I retract and renounce certain political positions. There's no official word telling him to drop this. And now I'm being investigated for criticizing some of his statements.

Why is it "on topic" on a thread about why people distrust athiests, for people to argue that Nazis were Christians, but "derailing the thread" for people to argue that Nazis weren't Christians and had disavowed Christianity?

The thread wasn't about "respecting atheists." The thread was about why Atheists are "the most distrusted minority."

In response to this and later questions on the thread, I listed some of the things that atheist governments such as the PRC and North Korea are doing right now during the 21st century. These things are on the news, and I think they relate to why many Americans might be intolerant of atheists. It's obviously unfair to judge Atheists in America for what's being done in China, but people are unfair. I pointed out that now, in the 21st century, the largest-scale atrocities being committed are being committed by Atheist states.

Ev retaliated to this by saying that the Nazi party was a Christian organization. Kind of off topic, since Nazi atrocites are not a 21st century event, and since the question of Nazi Christian affiliation has nothing to do with why people might distrust Atheists.

But your analysis of the quarrel is:
quote:
Now can we agree to go lick our wounded arteries in private and stop derailing threads about respecting atheists with speculation on if Nazis renounced Christianity or not?
Red, I appreciate that you've stood up for me in the past, but your analysis here grossly distorts the thread and the events of the quarrel. [Mad]

[ April 09, 2006, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Frankly, OSC would get thrashed as regularly as anyone else on Ornery does, if he were still brave enough to post in the general forum.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if OSC were to come here under a pseudonym, that a certain person would stalk and pester him across threads, and OSC would end up getting suspended from Ornery for infractions of imaginary "rules."

[ April 09, 2006, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
It's that simple realize what's the issue. No one cares less over whether Nazi is or isn't bigoted or even how insulted a Christian should or should not be if called a Nazi. People are simply pointing out that your referral to a generalization about Nazis is pretty damn suspect. All you had to do was get far more specific, acknowledge that there was ample evidence to support the contrary view and move on with the thread topic.

I acknowledged there was some evidence to support the contrary view, and I moved on with the thread topic, first with Caliban and again with Richard Dey, but Ev kept coming back over and over demanding an apology for "calling me a bigot [sic]" etc., when I'd simply criticized his statements. That's why the thread stayed derailed. Ev turned it into an argument over whether I should get in trouble for saying that a STATEMENT was "bigoted," "hateful," and "blood libel."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record my contact with Ornery members via email right now has had absolutely nothing to do with this particular dust up.

And I am currently not curising along on Aim or messenger to provide running comentary .

The issue Pete is the Nazi party can be a christian party or not. Ev made a pretty general statement that the Nazi party was christian. You contend it wasn't with an absolute appeal to the fact that you could dredge up a couple of quotes supporting your view. Then the Richard landslide of citations soon followed and things got completely out of hand.

Its spread across what 3 threads now?

Thats the issue you didn't like Ev's statement, provided a contrary statement, then got insular when other people readily provided even more references supporting Ev's statement than yours. The issue over whether Atheist are respected or not might depend on how non religious governments have acted in the past and present. I think Paul was pointing out that the General Christian nature of the Nazi party is an example of a christian government going straight to the top of the pile for reasons to respect atheists instead of christians. Then it becomes a prove they were christian..

And it goes from there.


At the end, whether the Nazis were or were not christians shouldn't really be a prime support for any argument for or against the issue of atheists being respected.

Its just another example of a trivial point of disagreement or definition between the two of you getting completely out of hand and both of you suffering some sort of shared melt down that makes neither of you able to see the trivial disagreement between each other, nor the semantics each is using to enflame the other.

God this is about as pointless as Pel falling on his sword or theyux having any chance at being a best selling author over on the other side.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete really its time to put down the keyboard and go play with your family, breath fresh air, and forget that the internet even exists.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We would have just moved on if Ev hadn't kept repeating his demand for an apology, and dragging TempMod into it. This move forced me to defend my position just to clarify that I had not made a personal attack on Ev by criticizing his position.

I moved this thread here, because the "Pete and Ev show" argument has been taken over with the Nazi argument. My point on this thread is that something is sick on this forum when the three statements above become an excuse for Ev to threaten someone with official sanctions.


quote:
At the end, whether the Nazis were or were not christians shouldn't really be a prime support for any argument for or against the issue of atheists being respected.
YES! I agree with you! But the tendency of many atheists to raise blood libels against Christians is very closely related to the actual thread topic, which was "Atheists being DISTRUSTED," not "atheists being respected."

Remember when "Passion of the Christ" came out? Some atheists were falling over themselves, yelling that the movie was going to cause Christians to go berserk and start killing Jews. Actual number of casualties: Zero.

KE started with the question of why so many Christians would not want their kids to marry an atheist. Well, I think the blood libels may have something to do with it. No parent likes the idea that their son or daughter might marry someone who might cut their kid and grandkids off from them because of their faith.

quote:
I think Paul was pointing out that the General Christian nature of the Nazi party is an example of a christian government going straight to the top of the pile for reasons to respect atheists instead of christians.
But that's no defense, since the thread was not about RESPECTING atheists, it was about TRUSTING atheists. KE's study shows they weren't trusted. KE asked why. I showed one example based on current events. Ev was off-topic. Ev's demands for apologies and his threats, kept the thread derailed.

If I didn't have to fear for my continued membership here every time Ev took my remarks out of context, I would not feel obliged to answer his accusations and clarify what I had actually said, and why.

Case in point, Red:

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008456;p=6&r=nfx

Ev left the discussion alone for a couple hours, and we went right back on track, me, Caliban, KE, Richard Dey, and others, for a whole page. Then at the very bottom of the page, Ev shows back up and DRAGS the discussion BACK to whether the Nazi party was a "Christian organization." And there goes the thread.

[ April 09, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Pete really its time to put down the keyboard and go play with your family, breath fresh air, and forget that the internet even exists.

Family's at church, and I'm sitting here watching my second sonm, making sure he doesn't hurt himself. He doesn't want to play now; he's just folding and refolding towels. [Frown]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reading "The Language Instinct" (W. Pinker) I encountered a description of Williams Syndrome. I am familiar with it through a child at the local school where I used to volunteer with the 'wee-tards'. Great little buggers who can pick their friends AND their friends' noses. I miss 'em.

I think that the fascinating ability to read/write in such fluid formats as fora like Ornery brings out a bit of Williams Syndrome in all of us. Are brains aren't used to dealing with such an amazingly tangible and concentrated form of abstract communication. The 'will to language' tends to verwhelm the will, period.

A veritable sea of words and, bandwidth permitting, a few sounds and images and, for those who like it, facey-facey via minicam. (Most of us here are not, I surmise, of the minicam crowd.) Within the myriad feedback loops this provides, eddies are formed. With some of us, these eddies become a force of their own. I think this might explain some of the more incessant and obsessive posting we see here.

I am quite capable of such obsession, but not for long. It runs its course within a day or three, all other things being equal. I first discovered this capacity in me when I first came to Ornery over a year ago. I was ill with a nagging flu that exacerbated my HHT nosebleed phenomenon so much that I could do little more than sit, read, type, and get some dinner and clean dishes together for the famblee. I was too weak to do much of anything, and scampering among verb-trails with a host of mostly brighter-than-average yokels was perfectly hypnotic.

I return to Ornery mostly when I'm ill or have burnt myself out hammering away at the to me Sisyphean task of writing fiction that will one day be saleable. I see new aspects of this obsessive delight upon my each return.

At Ornery, a forum inspired by a man whose seminal work more accurately envisioned contemporary internet-word-works than anyone I'm aware of, including the illustrious Mr. Gibson, there's a delightful tautology to it all. The ghosts of Peter and (what was Ender's sister's name? Valentine?) inform us.

Pete has alluded to some compulsive or obsessive behavior in these matters. I think many of us have this to some degree. In Pete's case, I think this idea of 'eddies' might explain how certain themes like the Ev & Pete Show (to use a specific case as a generic example of a phenomenon many of us have witness, expoerienced, and driven) come to expand over several threads. One wants a sense of justice, of vindication, of closure, in a realm that is designed to expand the flow of verbal information. It has no governing idea except to keep the chatter flowing. There are no rules of the game. Few if any Orneryans have ever 'won' any of the 'contests' here in a manner that they could feel with certainty. It's not the nature of the beast. Within that nature, certain feedback cycles can grow cyclonically.

Only extreme nonsense or hostility receives universal consensus among us, usually in the form of 'kick the bum out/laugh at the idjit' group behavior marred by no or virtually no dissent.

At 50 years' age, and after 6 & 1/2 years' access to the internet, I feel strongly as if my very brain structure has been altered by it, especially by fora and google. (Oh yeah, and internet porn. One heckuva virtual harem, that one is. Hoo-wee!!!)

(My 11-year old son had been involved in internet communities for half a year now. It's a normal part of his social life. His brain is still growing per its normal developmental curve. One wonders...)

"KE started with the question of why so many Christians would not want their kids to marry an atheist."

Being the black agnostic sheep of my natal Mormon family, I know that for my family and me it's much harder to have an atheist in the family than as a friend. My family believes I'm making potentially eternal mistakes and so struggles with their impulse to evangelize me and thereby return me to the holy fold. I, in turn, feel like a virulent toxin in their midst. Every other thing I do or say is 'faith-eroding' to people whose social religiosity is based on the concept of 'faith-building/promoting'. I walk on gilded splinters around thewm, and it bores the holy beetlejuice outta me.

The divide worsens with contact. Not animosity increases but alienation grows. We love each other from ever further afar because we literally live in different worlds.

The desire to unite us for all time and eternity divides us in the one verifiable reality we have.

It's weird.

[ April 09, 2006, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: livermeer kenmaile ]

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by livermeer kenmaile:
"KE started with the question of why so many Christians would not want their kids to marry an atheist."

Being the black agnostic sheep of my natal Mormon family, I know that for my family and me it's much harder to have an atheist in the family than as a friend. My family believes I'm making potentially eternal mistakes and so struggles with their impulse to evangelize me and thereby return me to the holy fold. I, in turn, feel like a virulent toxin in their midst. Every other thing I do or say is 'faith-eroding' to people whose social religiosity is based on the concept of 'faith-building/promoting'. I walk on gilded splinters around thewm, and it bores the holy beetlejuice outta me.

The divide worsens with contact. Not animosity increases but alienation grows. We love each other from ever further afar because we literally live in different worlds.

The desire to unite us for all time and eternity divides us in the one verifiable reality we have.

It's weird.

I know some Mormons like that. They think I'm faith-eroding too, or anyone else that doesn't buy their exact interpretation of the faith. I nearly married into a family like that, but fortunately her parents interceded. I say fortunately now, but at the time, it was crushing. I can only imagine what it feels like to have your own family reject you like that. [Frown]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I can only imagine what it feels like to have your own family reject you like that"

They don't reject me. Although they did when I was 16 and rebellious, they soon got over that. I'm simply... poisonous to them. Like a '50s radiation horror movie protagonist: The Incredible Radioactive Dogma-Evaporating Man.

I have a nice family out here via my in-laws that ain't bad as families go. In fact, they're pretty good. But they suffer the universal flaw of our kind: they're human. I can't blame them for it, since they just popped into the world like I did, but I don't always like it nor do they).

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-
I wonder how many ways you can misconstrue events in one thread?

The clear intent behind my statement of stalking your posts was that I was going to jump on any post where you used the term "cultural nihilism." All other "Stalking" is only a figment of your imagination.

The only way in which I have ever tried to get you banned is by reporting posts in which you violate ornery rules, or appear to me to be breaking ornery rules. This amounts to trying to get you banned, because I have much greater leway for other posters on ornery before I'll hit the report button.

The statements at the top of this thread are not what you said to me in the other thread. They are very dissimilar in fact. What you said on the other thread was direct personal attacks against me, Pete, in response to a statement that was an answer to a challenge you put forth.

And the nazi's are relevant in that thread. Who is the most distrusted group of people on earth? The nazi's. Something is nazi, its automatically distrusted. The PRC is not even CLOSE. So if people distrust the PRC because its atheist, they should, theoretically speaking, distrust the nazi's more for being christian. But they don't. So its relevant material to the thread.

Yes, OSC would be attacked for saying someone is pushing a blood libel. And he might even say it. The fact that he would be attacked, on his own boards, for being hostile to people for expressing a factual statement, shows that ornery can, indeed, rise above its creator, and is indeed a community larger then one man.

You aren't being investigated for criticising my statemetns. You are being investigated for personally attacking me, for being personally insulting. There's a difference...

I'm not trying to get an ideological opponent silenced. I'm trying to get someone who uses the rhetorical tactic of turning his opponent into a monster silenced. Again... there's a difference.

Thats enough I suppose...not that this is a complete list of your misrepresentations on this thread, by any stretch.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by livermeer kenmaile:
"I can only imagine what it feels like to have your own family reject you like that"

They don't reject me. Although they did when I was 16 and rebellious, they soon got over that. I'm simply... poisonous to them. Like a '50s radiation horror movie protagonist: The Incredible Radioactive Dogma-Evaporating Man.

I have a nice family out here via my in-laws that ain't bad as families go. In fact, they're pretty good. But they suffer the universal flaw of our kind: they're human. I can't blame them for it, since they just popped into the world like I did, but I don't always like it nor do they).

I'm glad to hear it, Ken. My experience with my "almost-was" in-laws, was one of my life's more crushing experiences. While I was out visiting with that little cult of an extended family, I met a cousin who they shunned, basically because he had a mustache. Go figure.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is a bigoted claim."
or
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is a hateful claim."
or
quote:
"The claim that the Nazi party was a Christian organization, is tantamount to blood libel."

If we treat those ideological statements as "personal attacks," we've opened the door for someone to use the rules as a pretext for silencing an ideological opponent.

[ April 09, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of us don't distrust the PRC for being Atheist. We distrust the PRC for its crimes against humanity. For the three million Falun Gong members sitting in PRC concentration camps. For removing the organs of thousands of Falun Gong members while they are still alive. For the rape of Tibet. All of the facts that were conveniently buried by a shrill and thread-irrelevant argument about Nazis.

When Atheists get up and cover the CURRENT atrocities of atheist states, by changing the subject, it causes some persons to distrust atheists. That's what KE was asking about -- why so many people distrust Atheists.

If more of them were like KE, I don't think that so many people would distrust atheists.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think most of us would agree that had the Nazis prevailed, Xtianity would have eventually been either outlawed or perverted to some bizarre politicized form.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. That's what happened to everything the Nazi touched. Science. Art. Law.

For every Christian priest that whored himself for Naziism, I'll bet we could find at least one scientist, artist, and lawyer or judge that did the same.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
I think the moral here is that pretty much any institution can be corrupted by the degenerate or power-mad once it's been divorced from the ideals behind it. The harder question is whether it's worth trying to save such institutions, or abandon them and work to create new ones.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By abandon them, do you mean actually leave them alone, or do you mean work pell-mell to destroy them so that one can start all over again from a blank slate?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the moral is that we can't trust institutions to protect our ideals, and that the ideals must reside in a culture of vigilant, educated, and active voters, or all is lost.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
If we can't trust institutions to protect our ideals -- and I agree wholeheartedly -- I don't see why voting comes into it at all. *shrug* The government's just another institution.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the USA, the government is a lot of separate institutions. While we can't trust any one of them, they can't trust each other either, which creats a small margin of safety that we can exploit to keep our freedom, so long as we are careful and vigilant.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But you're right, even voting can be subverted. My point was that language and culture transcend institutions , and that as Orwell pointed out, tyranny must ultimately reshape the language in order to take complete possession of a people. A strong culture of vigilance and moral strength would be more resistant to corruption. That's what I meant by vesting our values in the culture rather than in institutions.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we can't trust institutions to protect our ideals -- and I agree wholeheartedly -- I don't see why voting comes into it at all. *shrug* The government's just another institution.
So's marriage. But if you neglect your spouse too much... likewise, a neglected senator, left insufficiently harrassed, becomes just another corporate diplomat domestique.

It's often a small distinction but it has kept us from complete authoritarianism for a couple of centuries.

shhh... the radio's playing Ella singing 'How Long Has This Been Going On'... shhh.... chills up my spine...

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Marriage is obviously more than just another institution. Marriage is a feature of the culture, like language. It not only enshrines values, but it's become a value itself.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...a feature of the culture, like language."

Some might say that for humans, culture is a feature of language.

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn, Ken. I'm ashamed I've never thought of it that way. That kind of insight is why you're my favorite enemy.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ain't me babe. I be's reading "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well that's still cool.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just wanted to point out that not only is marriage more than just another institution, it's not an institution in the same way as government at all; "institution" has a completely different meaning from "institution" [Smile]

("large organization" != "established custon or practice")

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

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