"We didn't tell you to come to America on holiday."

And if you could convince me that you wouldn't be prosecuting innocents who don't believe any such nonsense in such a tirade as arsenic proposes, I might be willing to actually discuss the comments, but since you can't...



Yes, and if I get so pissed off from the indigestion from eating a jalapeno-pepper sandwich I snap and kill someone, what I had for lunch today is far from irrelevent - but that's an extreme case, and in our society we don't condem everyone for extreme cases.



No more than anything else in a balanced individual. Where I was born influences me, where I went to school, where I work, who my S/O is, you name it.

You're still missing the point of what I said. Completely. You're colder now than you were before.

Buuuuuut...

In reference to your second 'paragraph', it sounds to me like your complaining about...

...

...people.

A religion is its people . Religion is the invention of man. Religion is not God.

But if a religion is it's people, and the majority of it's people are NOT trying to burn the unbeivers at the stake, you would have to say that the religion isn't trying to that either

hmm I seem to recall something like oh yeah this




by what you have said those opinions are opressive and should be removed so since all laws oppress someone's opinion we shouldn't have any


still haven't addressed the fact that the constitution is nothing but opinions and can be seen as oppressive. Since you have railed against that kind of thing, wouldn't the next logical step in the chain be to remove it?

from what I've gathered from your posts so far is

your against oppression, but because somethings are inline with your views they are ok.

hmm I think you need to try and read your own posts for a change and you will see what I am talking about.

I live in the American South. From my experience, there's a psycho with a proverbial torch and an issue with all NonChristians around every corner.

Key word, "From your experience" My experience in the American south was quite different (SC, Florida, Alabama, Georgia).

Besides, even if there were. How many corners are there compared to how many christians?

From my experience, this thread will go nowhere....

No... what I have said is that laws which are used to oppress and abuse people should not be enforced.
Since there are laws that are there for the purpose of stopping others from oppressing and abusing people, it's painfully obvious that I'm not saying we shouldn't have any laws.

It would be a good idea if you would read what I post and not what you think I'm trying to say...If it is oppressive... which it isn't.

That is the problem here... you seem to running on the idea that I am of the opinion that anything that *might* possibly be oppressive should be removed.
Since I'm of the opinion that only things that ARE oppressive and abusive to people should be stopped if they cannot be amended, it's all too obvious that you are railing against something that's non-existant.

Please... argue against my stance, not the mis-characterisation of it that you keep attacking.*sigh*

Once more... I am against oppression and abusive opinions.
If something is there to limit such oppressions and abuses, then yes, it's ok... the lesser of two evils. Whether that is in line with my views or not is beside the point.

That is my stance, not the twisted image you are trying to portray as my opinion.
I have seen what you are talking about... and I have seen that what you are talking about is not what I have been saying all along.



Now, just so you understand me... I joined this thread simply to point out that attempting to equate someone's post about removing a set of very oppressive and abusive beliefs that are amongst the major causes of many of the worlds problems with Hitlers attempts to enforce a very oppressive and abusive belief is just plain wrong.

If your argument is right, then these people are all the same...

Don't know where you got that from. Judaism doesn't state that. It says all who are righteous, not just those who follow their path. And I've heard the same from Muslims, too. Certain Christian denominations also espouse that view. Are there some in each camp who are dogmatic? Sure, but you can't say that everyone who ascribes to those faiths march in lock-step with their fellow adherants.

You may want to research that assertation a bit more.

you have argued in support of a hitleresque policy. you are infact being just as oppressive in your thoughts about removing an oppressive belief, now when you want to stop being hypocritical and feel like actually addressing what is said instead of stating "read what I said" we can continue but since without that you have no leg to stand on this debate is going to go nowhere.

I disagree. I see much potential in this thread, and I am therefore bumping it back to the top.

I love it when someone that is a month old stirs the pot. as much as I appreciate the immense sense of nationalism and misguided patriotism.. sl, for me, is a chance to get to know people and their views from all over the world. Only in the forums does it start out as a direct attack. Hell, I even have french friends now... wooo.. hah

I tend to think that every country in the world has some group of people that judge others on predelictions of character. Its not right, but thats people.

All these pages based on one resource.. from the BBC.. amazing. Great strides in race relations there.

as far as the other stuff... youre all wrong hahah.. hell, I dunno.. but when you fight dogmatically about whatever belief you have.. be it religious, moral, race, ect ect, you have seriously become disillusioned and simply a pawn. I beleive in the freedom of discussion... so why not have a discussion, not a violent bombing of insults towards beliefs you dont support.

as for me, I dont understand what alot of sl'ers do.. say, like gor *since everyones picked on them today alot) I have no idea what thats all about.. seems dull and insane to me, but I know Im not gonna read the books or try to understand.. I just let them do their thing.. and when I dont like it, I leave

So... your contention is that to try and stop the enforcement of oppressive and abusive laws is in fact oppressive... Would you say that is a fair assessment of your argument there?
Additionally, your contention is that such an act is in fact Hitleresque... yes?

If that is NOT your contention, then you should go back and look at your argument, since that is exactly what you have just contended...

Meanwhile, thanks to your argument that trying to stop oppression and abuse is Hitleresque, you've just managed to show that you are arguing in support of a Hitleresque policy, since you are attempting to stop someone being oppressive.

In summary, you have accused me of doing exactly what you are doing and have argued for exactly what you claim I have argued for...


And you claim I'm being hypocritical??

no I am trying to show that you can't get rid of all oppressive rules because there is always something oppressive to someone. No matter what it is, it will oppress someone somewhere, I am trying to show you that removing "oppressive" rules is nothing but a pipe dream. My comparison to Hitler was how he tried to remove the "oppressive" beliefs of the Jews because he thought they oppressed Germany and the rest of the world. Now, yes you can consider the stopping of abusive and oppressive laws as oppressive as well, since it oppresses those who want to enforce the law. If you write a law to stop something, there is always an opposing side who will feel oppressed. Yes you are being Hitleresque with your "removal of religions" racket, since that was one of Hitler's stated aims. You've succeeded in saying that if YOU think its oppressive it should be removed, nevermind what someone else thinks.

And, strangely enough, that's something I have pointed out myself during this thread... Sometimes the only choice is the lesser of two evils.Yep... and Churchill, Roosevelt et al were trying to remove the "oppressive" beliefs of Hitler because they thought they oppressed everyone...

Funny how your argument manages to make them all as bad as each other.Lesser of two evils... I've already stated that, so what the heck are you arguing for?

Remember, I mentioned that you should read what I posted, since you seemed to be arguing against something I DIDN'T post. Now, you're proving that you're arguing for the SAME THING I'm arguing for.

Pretty impressive proof that you haven't been reading what I post...Go back and find where I ever stated once that religions should be removed. You'll find that I've never even suggested that.

What I HAVE stated is that they are just as bad as Hitler was in that they try to remove the "oppressive" beliefs of others... only they don't have the excuse that the others are oppressing them.
Never once said that, or even suggested that... and if you read what I put, you'd have realised that.
Hell, if you'd read what I'd put, you'd have found this little gem...

You've managed to show that you've not been reading what I've been saying... to the point that you're trying to attack me for saying the same damn thing as you!
You threw out a Hitler comparison, not realising that the exact same comparison can be leveled against the religions Arsenic was ranting against.
You've shown that you are reading your own ideas of what people are saying into their posts and then attacking those ideas... rather than what they've actually said.


Now... you want to try arguing against what I'm saying for once, or do you want to continue attacking a figment of your imagination?

So when you complain about religions being Hitleresque like you have your just picking the lesser of two evils? Uh huh


I read what you post and draw my conclusions from what you say and have said in previous posts


you have failed to realize that the repression of religions like Arsenics views that you defended is just as Hitleresque. Lesser of two evils



again I draw my conclusions from what you have said in this thread, so if you think I am getting the wrong conclusions, maybe its your wording.

No... that was me pointing out that the comparison you made between Arsenic and Hitler fits with said religions as well...Which is why you've managed to get what I'm saying so completely wrong...

Something there says you're making a slight error in your conclusions... expecially when I've put it very simply what my stance is.
How you still manage to get it wrong is beyond me, unless it's deliberate...Shame I didn't defend it... all I did was point out that the comparison you made with Arsenic and Hitler fits the religions as well...
Goddess forbid that me saying very bluntly and clearly that I don't defend what Arsenic said, that I don't defend removing religions, and that there is never a way to remove all oppression and abuse without being oppressive and abusive to some degree but being preferable as the lesser of two evils is going to be enough for you to understand what I'm saying...

THAT is what I've been saying all along, yet no matter how clear I made it, you still insist that I'm defending Arsenic, want to remove all religions, and really want anything that's oppressive in my opinion removed no matter what anyone else thinks.


Is it clear enough now, or are you going to continue to misunderstand me?


:edit: and after making it that clear, continued accusations that I believe otherwise will be enough proof for me that you are willfully misrepresenting me.

again with the "you are misunderstanding me" stuff


you didn't defend him eh?


sounds awfully defensive to me

now face it you, defended him without thinking it through all the way and now you regret it but want to save face here so instead of admitting it, you continue to backtrack. You know his arguement is pointless as well as the rest of us. He just posted it to piss people off then he left. If you want to shout Godwin at my hitler comment, go ahead. It will only fall on deaf ears though.

Except that it doesn't.

Arsenic is one person (presumably). We can directly attribute everything Arsenic says to Arsenic. Arsenic bares full blame for everything Arsenic says.

"The religions" aren't even one religion, much less one nation, much less one ethnicity, much less one group of people, and much, much less one person. You can say some religious people hold views as extreme, and you would be right, I would agree - but you cannot say "the religions" hold this view, when they, as a whole, do not.

Correction... I am continuing to point out that your comparison of Arsenic and Hitler is a comparison that ALSO fits the religions he was railing against... and that as such, your comparison was flawed.

At no point have I defended his argument/rant, so I repeat my statement that you are deliberately misrepresenting me...
I knew it was circular, just like I knew your comparison of it to Hitler was circular...

They were both as pointless as each other. I have stated this from the start so it's hard to see just how I could backtrack on this. You, on the other hand, while not backtracking are instead willfully twisting what I have said to the point that you have created an image in your mind of what I have said that if the opposite of my stance and opinions.


Now... if you have any wish to discuss this, drop the twisted image and deal with what I actually said...

Or you can keep on as you are and simply be nothing more than a troll.

Context dear...

The religions referenced happen to be the "Big 3" whos core beliefs are that anyone who doesn't hold to their beliefs will be wiped out/tortured for eternity.
The followers of those religions might not hold the same core beliefs, but the Religions =/= the followers. Hence, the comparison with the Religions fits.

Example... as a follower of a religion, you might not believe that all people who have left the religion should be hunted down and burnt alive... but that doesn't remove the core belief of the Religion that all those who leave should be hunted down and burnt alive.
So, even though you don't hold that "extreme" view, the Religion itself does!

You need a history lesson and i suggest your first stop is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers

Peace

Religions have no /no/ beliefs. Religions are not sentient. The followers of a religion believes things, so if the followers do not believe a thing, the religion does not believe a thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief




You were saying?