|
Post by Yla on Dec 1, 2011 11:36:12 GMT -5
I can tolerate the existence of fundies and even racists in places like Canada, Australia, or Europe. But when they exist in America, they fulfill the negative stereotypes of Americans, and that is unforgivable. My hatred of the South knows no bounds. For as long as they hold the rest of us back and ruin our reputations, Dixie will be the focus of my righteous indignation. ..sigh.. Brendan, you say that you abhor fundies in America, but tolerate them/don't care about them in the rest of the world, thus ignoring that they spout the same bullshit everywhere (I think you pointed that last one out yourself to defend the US in another thread). It's okay if you give your own country priority. But you don't just stay there, you flat-out say that you tolerate them elsewhere, leaving the rest of the world to rot, so to speak. And this is exactly the 'I matter, fuck the rest' arrogance that people criticize in the American stereotype. You're perpetuating it yourself! I would like you to think a bit further and extend your consideration to every part of the world. This isn't just about fundies, this is a theme that has appeared in your posts several other threads. You are concerned about the negative American stereotype, but in several cases you exhibit exactly these aspects, like exceptionalism, arrogance, egoism. Maybe you could start working on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 1, 2011 11:49:12 GMT -5
I don't have to be "tolerant of intolerance." Just because churches are allowed to be racist bigoted fucktardians and discriminate against interracial couples doesn't mean I have to respect them or treat them like anything other than monsters. Of course not. But it is kinda hard to mainain the moral high ground doing the same thing as those you criticise. Well this is a paradoxical statement. Using morality to criticise using morality to criticise morality debases itself. Or, perhaps more clearly even if more complicated in explanation, think of it like this. Morality, being subjective, has no objective viewpoint from which to lever criticism. Thusly, any criticism against morality must come from another subjective morality. Any criticism against this last point will itself also be subjective morality, as it is questioning the morality of using morality to question morality. This then puts it in a recursive loop, whereby it must then question itself questioning something. It is then a paradox because in order for it to be right it would have to have been wrong in the first place, which would also then prove it to be wrong as a whole. Other than that I agree with Lighthorseman. Churches, being private religious institutions, have the right to ban anyone they please, either from attending or doing certain activities within itself. Of course, what gives them that freedom also gives others the freedom to criticise said beliefs and practices, including using morality to do so since they are themselves basing their (offensive) beliefs and practices off of morality, which is what I disagree with Lighthorseman about as given in my above criticism.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 1, 2011 11:49:39 GMT -5
You know what I find the funniest about this? LHM is still taking a moral stance, specifically tolerance. All you peons are not allowed to criticize other people's moral opinions, but I can sure as fuck criticize yours. If he was an actual subjectivist he would be unable to criticize the people here for their reaction to the church because both stances are equal in weight. I don't have peer-reviewed studies on this, so my opinion is worthless. That said, I believe that Lighthorseman is pointing out that a church has a right to be a bunch of bigoted, knuckle-dragging morons, as it is their rules to do so. He hasn't stated he agrees with the pastor's decision, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't (Again, I have no peer-reviewed studies to back this.) And although I do disagree with some if not many of LHM's opinions and sometimes do find him quite dense on occasion, this isn't a formal debate, and I do find Zack going a bit too far to prove he agrees with the church's position. In fact, I find this to be jumping to the wrong conclusion and just runs down the slide from there. The problem I have is he is a subjectivist who is criticizing other people's moral views. This is something a subjectivist is unable to do while remaining a subjectivist.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Dec 1, 2011 14:25:10 GMT -5
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Dec 1, 2011 14:42:21 GMT -5
That said, I believe that Lighthorseman is pointing out that a church has a right to be a bunch of bigoted, knuckle-dragging morons, as it is their rules to do so. He hasn't stated he agrees with the pastor's decision, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't (Again, I have no peer-reviewed studies to back this.) And although I do disagree with some if not many of LHM's opinions and sometimes do find him quite dense on occasion, this isn't a formal debate, and I do find Zack going a bit too far to prove he agrees with the church's position. In fact, I find this to be jumping to the wrong conclusion and just runs down the slide from there. ... Zachski never said or even implied LHM was agreeing with the church's positition. And if you have to accuse someone of "jumping to the wrong conclusion", it's me, not him. On the other hand, lighthorseman definitely said that wickedwitch lost her "moral higher ground" over the racist churches just by hating on them. Case in point : I don't have to be "tolerant of intolerance." Just because churches are allowed to be racist bigoted fucktardians and discriminate against interracial couples doesn't mean I have to respect them or treat them like anything other than monsters. Of course not. But it is kinda hard to mainain the moral high ground doing the same thing as those you criticise. WW admits that churches are free to be as full of shit as they want. LHM still goes self-righteous subjectivist (how does that even work?) on WW. This is a recurring problem - remember the "teenage sex drive" crisis? - and that's why I'm giving up on trying to follow his points. Bottom line : when lighthorseman says that churches are allowed to be as prejudiced as they want to, pretty much everyone is agreeing with him. Thing is, that's not all he said, even though you may argue it was his main point.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Dec 1, 2011 14:52:11 GMT -5
By the way, the YouTube comments are waaaay too over the top for me to obfuscate over them. Obvious trolls are obvious, and also mildly entertaining. Knowing Youtube, I don't think those people were trolling.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Dec 1, 2011 15:07:52 GMT -5
If people didn't have a right to be completely wrong about the world this site wouldn't exist folks.
That said, I want to see who all picks up on this, anyone found fox news coverage of it yet?
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Dec 1, 2011 15:23:25 GMT -5
Knowing Youtube, I don't think those people were trolling. Oh, come on. All the "racist" commenters appear about the same time ("16 hours ago" at the time of this writing), and then slowly fade out. They have names like DanielVon Rommel (who wants to burn "race traitors") or theVAGINAntichrist. Trident7830, one of the most vocal trolls, claimed that baseball arbitration is the ultimate challenge to human intelligence. Those are definite signs of a troll infestation.
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Dec 1, 2011 15:59:11 GMT -5
That said, I want to see who all picks up on this, anyone found fox news coverage of it yet? There is an article on Fox News.com, but it appears to be nothing more than a copy of the Associated Press article, and comments have been disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 1, 2011 16:52:55 GMT -5
The funny thing is, LHM got all more-moral-than-thou over something no one even said.
NO ONE has said anything about limiting the church's freedoms. All we did was criticize is. Oh, but by doing so, we're somehow inhibiting the church's rights?
And anytime anyone calls him out on something he said that he claims he didn't say, even quoting it, he just calls it "semantics".
I'm not saying LHM is taking the church's side, but he certainly hasn't thought about the implications of what he's saying.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 1, 2011 17:17:29 GMT -5
You flat-out said that we couldn't maintain the moral high ground if we criticized the church and its people for doing this. It's practically a SYNONYM of what murdin said you said. So yes, that is what you said. Don't try to deny reality. Lighthorseman said they had a right to their opinion. He never said he agreed with them, or that we should defend them. To put it another way... "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to give you the right to say it." Basically, this.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Dec 1, 2011 17:23:29 GMT -5
Okay, I see the slide. Yes, it had to do with LHM saying racists had a right to their opinion and people shouldn't get angry about it. And in this case, I disagree. My apologies.
They may be entitled to their opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, and in this case, the authors of these quotes are, in my opinion, subhuman trash.
It's one thing to make statements like this. It's quite another to say that no one has a right to be upset about them.
EDIT: I see by the post above what you're saying, but you did tell WW that she shouldn't be upset by what she read on the comments.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Dec 1, 2011 20:03:39 GMT -5
Lighthorseman said they had a right to their opinion. He never said he agreed with them, or that we should defend them. To put it another way... "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death to give you the right to say it." Basically, this. Except no one was denying them the right to say it. Criticism of someone's statement does not infringe on their free speech. You are attacking a strawman.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 2, 2011 0:40:18 GMT -5
Except no one was denying them the right to say it. Criticism of someone's statement does not infringe on their free speech. You are attacking a strawman. Oh come on, it was pretty strongly implied on the first page they don't have the right to their highly unpopular opinion.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Dec 2, 2011 0:49:05 GMT -5
|
|