I agree with all of that. I just call that human weakness.Originally Posted by Shiav
I agree with all of that. I just call that human weakness.
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
I guess Thomas Jefferson was a troll too.
Oh and no, sorry, there is literally nothing that could ever, ever happen to me that would suddenly make me believe in gods, or fairies or leprechauns, seeing as how they are all equally non-existent.
No Jefferson expressed his ideas fully and clearly. He didn't constantly throw out exaggerated expressions like "slavery" and "evil" with the express intent of luring people into political debates. So he was not a troll.
But trolls are real. You must believe in them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Yeah, he never used inflammatory language. Shall we keep going? I can do this all day.
So, you're calling for a revolution? You pick a funny place to do that. Enough with the grandiosity, Steth.
How is that inflammatory? Sacrifices must be made for the greater good. In removing the greatest darknesses from the world we must also lose some of the light.
Also, you are completely trolling, just throwing ☺☺☺☺ out there without actually saying anything, like normal. The only reason any of our threads ever really survive is because the mods pretty much stopped caring about us going off topic a long, long time ago.
I'm actually responding directly to what people say. He said that my "slavery" comment was trolling, I found a quote by Jefferson saying exactly the same thing. He said Jefferson was diplomatic with his words, I found a quote where he basically says that we need a bloody revolution every few decades. Sorry I wasn't spelling this all out for you before, I trusted you to understand the points I was making.
I dunno, give Shiav a secure basement and an unlimited account with Radio Shack and I wouldn't make any bets...
No, Shiav said you were trolling. I just agreed with him. Let's summarize. I said Jefferson's ideas were expressed clearly and fully and not just thrown out in order to lure people into a debate. Then you compared the inflammatory words that you throw about in order to troll arguments to the ones he made when trying to start a revolution. Then I called you grandiose. Sorry I wasn't spelling this all out for you before. I trusted you to understand the points I was making.
Okay, let me be super simple for you: Jefferson and I said the exact same thing using slightly different language. Um...yeah I can't be any more clear than that. If I'm a troll, then he was the original troll. Which, I guess since he spearheaded a violent revolution against a king, maybe you could call him the "troll of his day". Honestly, it was fun shutting you down over and over, even if you didn't realize that's what was happening, but now I think I'm done with this line of thought. If you want to continue being obtuse, go for it.
At least according to popular media, that's the premise off the US Marine Corps training as well, I believe - break them down, and then build them back up as marines. Of course, they're all volunteers...
I agree with Shiav on that groups of people are, or can be, higher powers. As a non-theist (Liberal) Quaker, when more Christ-centred Friends speak of God, I interpret it as "the union of the divinities of all people"; when I speak, I use various terms that they interpret as "God". The difference in precise meaning doesn't get in the way of us worshipping and working together (usually).
Doing something because you feel compelled by a duty to a group is very much being guided by a higher power. Realisation of something you can do to help your fellow man is certainly of the ilk of divine revelation.
I understand your argument. The problem is your argument is silly. He was using inflammatory language to start a revolution. That makes him a revolutionary. You are using inflammatory language to incite people to debate with you for your own amusement. That makes you a troll.
I get that you validated your first statement by attaching it to Jefferson. That's not the point. Your repeated use of inflammatory and polarizing language is the point. You did not say, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." You used the word "slavery" just like you use the word "evil". You do it to get a rise out of people. Then you make strawman arguments with what they say, accuse them of not be smart enough to understand your points, and then ignore their points. Honestly, you didn't shut me down once, even though you think that you did. But now I think I'm done with this line of thought. If you want to continue being obtuse, go for it.
Rule number one of the forums, remember?Never feed people with handle's that start with S. That includes Sombrus, Steth, and even me
How secure are we talking? Secure from the law? I could do a lot with diplomatic immunity and no fear of legal consequences
TJ? Not much of a troll.
Twain was a troll, Churchhill was a troll. There are worse things to be called. Just remember that the words "I'm offended" are a meaningless whine.
You think it's clever to repeat what I say back at me don't you?
Look, whether you want to believe me or not, I'm not a troll. I don't say things to get a rise out of people. My ideal response from people would be "Yeah I agree", as I think everyone posting would want. I find trolling pointless and annoying. Everything I say, I mean, and I use the same language on here that I do in real life conversations. I just get straight to the point and I don't care about sparing someone else's feelings or sensibilities. I call that being a straight shooter, others may call that being an a-hole. *shrug*
But no where in there am I simply mouthing off to watch people get angry.
Thank you.
I don't accept the use of the word troll outside of internet context. Using it to describe people who could not, without a time machine, roam the internet in order to bait people seems a misappropriation of the word. We have perfectly good words to describe these people: provocateur, agitator, etc. Trolling has a particular meaning. I think it's better to stick with it.
Anyway, I apologize for sidetracking this thread. It was not my intention, but does seem to be my fault. I can accept on his word that Stethnorun is not intentionally trolling. He's just a jerk. The topic can be steered back in the right direction now.
Last edited by Joketa; 03-28-2012 at 06:01 PM. Reason: spelling
The original topic in this and almost all of our threads is dead and completely beaten. We've been over all the avenues that people want to cover until somebody new comes along.
Oi!Rule number one of the forums, remember?
(10chars)
Agreed, in principal. But it fits the meaning and I was running with the narrative.I don't accept the use of the word troll outside of internet context.
Then again, fads don't always die. Sometimes fashionable words survive and join the language proper. In 20 years, who knows.
Can we at least agree that The Cure was an Emo band?
Quite unfortunate my friend. I recommend a name change.Oi!
(10chars)
It's true that you can't control what words will be in the future, but in my opinion it's best to use them as succinctly as possible to avoid the degradation of language. "Trolling the internet" is a new expression and has a particular idea to give legitimacy to the word. We already have synonyms for provocateur. Creating a new one just dummies down the word. We're already quite in danger of words losing all context. Words like "cool" can mean just about anything. People incorrectly use ironic to mean coincidence. That doesn't mean they should. One day someone will say "hat" to mean "car" and it will just be confusing. Again, we can't have total control over what words will mean in the future, but we can control how we use them now. A misunderstanding of the word troll already caused confusion in this thread.Agreed, in principal. But it fits the meaning and I was running with the narrative.
Then again, fads don't always die. Sometimes fashionable words survive and join the language proper. In 20 years, who knows.
Can we at least agree that The Cure was an Emo band?
As far as I'm concerned The Cure was New Wave, albeit much darker and more complex than prototypical bands such as The Psychedelic Furs, New Order, Echo & The Bunnymen, etc. They were also more diverse in their inspiration and in their creation. For certain songs on Disintegration, such as the title track, I can certainly catch the connection to Emo, though you could also point at Progressive Rock. They are a pretty hard band to classify.
This thread has gone off on another rabbit trail, but I'll point out that many people would have to disagree because they've found that very solution. Brian Welch is one that comes to mind.
Do I really need to point out the obvious? Come now.
Yes, otherwise you continue to brand yourself "obvious troll". Dispute his claims like the man of science you claim to be.
Hear hear, well said. Having a debate with Steth is well amazing because you'd have to convince him to actually be reasonable enough to read through opposing opinions (imagine the thought for Steth) without putting a heavy unfactualy support bias taht completely disenfranchises anything he says.
I just assume that everyone on here already knows what I'm going to say so it's somewhat like busy work to type it all out. Like after you've been with a spouse for a number of years, you don't need to spell everything out because they know your mind well enough.
Some of us are still lying to ourselves that people can change for the better and we don't need to call our lawyers or start staying late at the office
Even when those same institutions promote homophobia? Conspire to conceal incidences of child molestation? When their symbols, scriptures, and other foundational elements are used - without official protest - to promote racial and ethnic hatred? To promote violence against nonbelievers?
...
All that is true of fundamentalist christianity, right here in the U.S. of A. Not a third-world hellhole, no ... right on Main Street in Anytown USA.
Faith can be a wonderful thing. However, religion too often twists faith into something horrible.
As a self-avowed Agnostic, I find this the most insulting thing anyone can say to me. It has, in fact, come perilously close to ending friendships int eh past.
Let me explain it this way: If the question is posed, "Is there a Deity" ...
- A theist will say "yes";
- An atheist will say "no";
- An agnostic will say "maybe".
There is a position which neither believes nor disbelieves in the existance of "God" (or Zeus, Odin, Amaterasu, Quetzalcoatl, or whomever).
Specifically, Agnosticism claims that the answer to that question is unknown, and even (for radical agnostics) CANNOT be known. A radical agnostic would consider both Theists and Atheists to be deluded fools, one and all.
Thus, to suggest that "agnostics are just a kind of atheist" is ... well, honestly I can't use that kind of language here, without piling up a mountain of infraction points. Suffice to say, in the words of Yosemite Sam: "Them's fightin' words, pardner!"
So, please: cease and desist even hinting at such a thing.
\
..... and you go right back on the s**t-list.
A society's value is measured in how they treat the most needy among them. And cold-hearted callousness, an Ebeneezer Scrooge-like "they should die and decrease the surplus population" dismissal of others' suffering and need? Does not speak well to that value.
One needn't be religious or spiritual, to be compassionate, nor to feel empathy for one's fellows.
Case in point: me. I have a non-physical disability (no, you're not going to be made privy to the details, so don't bother asking). The federal government has determined, via a panel of medical and other experts, that I am unable to secure and retain gainful employment.
My family? Poor, every one of them. The ones who aren't already dead, anyway.
Friends? I don't make many; one symptom of my issues is that I'm not very outgoing, in person. Never have been, either.
Private charities? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....
The ones that don't require ascribing to their religious doctrines and beliefs? Well, there was one homeless shelter, and soup kitchen, that I found. "Nice" place, rat- and roach-infested, filthy, rundown, and in some parts, almost more of a health hazard than sleeping under a bridge. Oh, and you did't take off your shoes, nor your coat, to sleep. If anything, you tied them on TIGHTER, if you wanted to still have them in the morning.
You see, I actually have been homeless. I've spent the night under a bridge, and huddled in an alley. I've gone over a week without food, even a single bite. And not because I made bad choices, nor because I'm lazy or irresponsible. No, because of the way I was born. No greater justification than the color of one's skin, or their height, or their shoe size.
And I am dead certain, with your attitude towards the needy, that you haven't been faced with hardships nearly that bad. Noone who had ever faced that in their lives, could possibly feel as you profess here.
Pucker up, and kiss my fat hairy backside.
Last edited by _Pax_; 03-29-2012 at 05:14 PM.
I commend your spirits. Don't let Steth get to you, that's just the easy life that hasn't seen pain.
Agnosticism does make infinitely more sense to me than atheism, as I can't see a situation where I could ever say "this is completely impossible no matter what". I ascribe to Theism simply because it feels right.
Religion has caused much and is still causing much pain in the world. The Church could do more to end AIDS in Africa than any other organization on the planet but doesn't out of their back-words view. Both Christian and Muslim extremists in the US and Middle East have an incredibly intolerant view of the world. But this is what man has made of God, not the other way around. If you read the new testament, no where will Jesus say that homosexuality is bad. He will never say to fight on his behalf, or to shun those who don't believe. In the words of Gandhi "Christ, I like. Christians, not so much."
Nope. This is absolutely not true. Faith is always evil because faith is the belief of something with out, or in spite of contrary, evidence. I think you know that, but said this line to be diplomatic.
Oh and yes, even for you, it is intellectual dishonesty. If one asks you "Is there a god?", obviously the answer NEEDS to be "I don't know". That's true of theists, atheists, agnostics, EVERYONE. It's an epistemological question and it has only one answer.Pucker up, and kiss my fat hairy backside.
But most people don't ask that question, precisely because the answer is obvious. What they DO ask is, "Do you believe in a god?" Pax, sorry to say, but you do not, and that makes you an atheist. Belief is an active, participatory mindset. No one "passively believes" in something. When someone asks you if you believe in gravity, you don't say "I don't know, and we can never REALLY know". You say "Of course", because you aren't willfully trying to dodge the question.
Your agnosticism is a willful dodge. You are answering a question that no one asked and avoiding a question that people DO ask.
I know many people who answer "Do you believe in God?" with "I don't know".
Also, you are clearly very sheltered and biased if you think faith is "always evil"
Finally, I'm sorry that your life is hard, I really am. That sucks. But we all have sob stories of one kind or another. We all have hardships. Personal anecdotes don't change moral axioms. Would you put a gun to a stranger's head and demand money from them in order to make your life easier? I sincerely doubt you would. But at the same time, you support giving the government, an entity that does things IN YOUR NAME, of doing exactly that. You are saying "I won't hold the gun to your head and extort money out of you, but I will support the IRS and FBI is doing so, because I think it's more 'compassionate'".
Penn says it better than I could: http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=41335
I'm not saying it makes people do evil things, I'm saying that the willful shutting down of one's critical thinking is evil.
And the people that answer the question like that are dodging. If they don't know, then they don't believe. I don't KNOW either. But that means I don't believe. It's a pretty simple point I'm making.
Oh I just saw this. Shiav, can you ever respond to my posts without some half-baked psychoanalysis. I told you before, you suck at it. I'm not going to get into my own sob story (mostly because I'm not a boo-hoo, poor me type), but long story short, you are so wrong about this. I've overcome adversity that I bet most people on this forum would buckle under. So seriously, stop trying with this. It's getting old and you have no damn clue.
I'm curious and surprised _Pax_, I do not think I talked about agnosticism in that quote. Nor would I claim agnostics as a subset of atheism. You may as well have chastised me for talking about your mother, she was equally relevant to my quote there
I get that the previous quote was comparing the two, but I complained about the term MILITANT atheism, and the idea that atheist think "you are stupid if you think there is"*a god*
Some do, certainly. Personally I think it is much more common for theists to express such a defense mechanism. You are probably right that agnostics are even less likely to give a care what others think, but that doesn't mean those terribly mis-described "militants" define atheism.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote