The Attack on Christians Continues (by Hiraghm)
Posted by ShrugInArgentina 9 years, 9 months ago to Culture
Hiraghm recently submitted new a topic which is hidden due to to his low "member score". It will generate a lot more comments if it is visible to everyone, so I am re-posting it here.
This is Hirgham's comment:
"It's getting close to time to vote with our feet.
I'm tired of these intolerant JERKS using this as a forum to attack Christian beliefs, not simply as part of a logical argument, but as ad hominem assaults, with insults, condescension and misattribution.
Go ahead, drive us out. Make this an echo chamber. And when you have to deal with your Moslem or Communist overlords, I hope it's the latter, because I'd like to be there to hear you whine about being fellow atheists and therefore exempt from persecution.
Cause I ain't going to fight 'em for you. I'm going to point right at you and say, "There they are; be so kind as to eat me last so I can enjoy their education".
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e9...
This is Hirgham's comment:
"It's getting close to time to vote with our feet.
I'm tired of these intolerant JERKS using this as a forum to attack Christian beliefs, not simply as part of a logical argument, but as ad hominem assaults, with insults, condescension and misattribution.
Go ahead, drive us out. Make this an echo chamber. And when you have to deal with your Moslem or Communist overlords, I hope it's the latter, because I'd like to be there to hear you whine about being fellow atheists and therefore exempt from persecution.
Cause I ain't going to fight 'em for you. I'm going to point right at you and say, "There they are; be so kind as to eat me last so I can enjoy their education".
Read more at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e9...
I revisited a pm I wrote to khalling to confirm.
As it seems to be an inherent, unalterable character trait, I'm investigating possible methods of eliminating the problematic symptoms.
verb \ə-ˈprō-prē-ˌāt\
: to get or save (money) for a specific use or purpose
: to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.
ap·pro·pri·at·edap·pro·pri·at·ing
Full Definition of APPROPRIATE
transitive verb
1
: to take exclusive possession of : annex <no one should appropriate a common benefit>
2
: to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use <appropriate money for the research program>
3
: to take or make use of without authority or right
Care to take another stab, this time using a word that actually means what you're trying to say?
Imagine the reaction if you suggested they needed to study Christianity further...
Tell your husband to shut the f* up, if he can't engage in "reasoned debate" without resorting to ad hominem attacks and revisionist history.
I can take ad hominems, I'm a expert at them. The problem I have is the bad taste it leaves in my mouth when people are allowed to inveigh ad hominems, and are protected from receiving them by the management and the majority of the membership. The instant anyone tries to point out the flaws in "purist" Objectivism (ie, the Word as handed down by her holiness Ayn Rand), there is a firestorm of attacks on them, usually involving ad hominem, but especially inviting them to leave if they don't like the flavor of the kool-aide.
Once again Christian beliefs were being insulted; the implication was being made that Christianity was bad because of pedophile priests. I countered, quoting an Objectivist pedophile as justifying an act of oral sodomy on a minor to whom he had given candy as "trading value for value". I did so in a vulgar way, using a vulgar vernacular to reference the act of oral sodomy. (the idea for the example came from an episode of "Law and Order; SVU" I'd been watching in which a "perp" tried that very justification for his actions).
Khalling was for some bizarre reason outraged; I say bizarre, because within 24 hours she made a posting linking to a site relating a news story regarding the gang-rape of children. With pictures, iirc.
Sdesapio actually left me voice mail on my phone (normally I don't give my phone number to sites that request it... turns out to be a good policy). I woke up, got the voice mail, and returned the call, before I was even aware of what post we were talking about.
Instead of deleting it... *or allowing me to delete it*, as I offered to do, he wanted me to post a comment explaining it as I had explained it to him over the phone, after which he said he would step in and settle things down. Instead, he stepped in, feigned outrage, and joined in the condemnation.
Part of the explanation was that I do not regard *any* thought as "unthinkable". Thinking a thought is not the same as *advocating* it. You can't think about condemning murder, for example, without thinking about murder.
My point was, and still is, that bad people can hide behind, and be found advocating, any philosophy, no matter how hypocritical it may be for them to do so (they're bad people, therefore irrational justification is a likely recourse for them, anyway).
THAT is how I got my "low member score". Not by defending Christianity's place in history from dbhalling's irrational attacks.
It's also why, in spite of my general nature to be friendly with people, I will on occasion remember that I can not like or trust khalling or sdesapio.
Now you know how it feels.
The part where "natural rights" exist (they don't) and the part where you assert that the wall exists to protect you from EXPOSURE to Christianity.
Yes, leap to an extreme which has nothing to do with my assertions...
No one is demanding that anyone grovel before Christianity... unless one considers basic, civil, respectful discourse "groveling".
If you Objectivists, inside and outside this website, continue your singular attack on Christianity, by treating it and its adherents with contempt, you will lost Christian conservatives as supporters. And without the support of Christian conservatives, who vastly outnumber Objectivists... there will be no one to defend you from Islam and the collectivists. And those two factions aren't as stupid and helpless as Rand portrays the antagonists in AS.
I don't care how god-like Rand made Galt in AS; any real-world man can be broken and made to obey. Even Objectivists. To paraphrase Archimedes, all you need is the right lever.
A lesson our military had to start giving our pilots and others at risk of becoming PoWs.
Any talk about me enslaving you is nonsensical.
I am not sure what that means, it could be that he means unless others grovel before his religion he will leave. As a result (according to the argument) we others will get Moslem or Communist overloads.
Possible rational responses are 1. Ignore or 2. say. -Go ahead.
Your choice. Do not impose your choice on others.
To make an argument that may or may not have merit, then to accompany it with threats or emotional blackmail, is to shoot yourself in the foot.
Cannot resist adding- there is a certain place that has an overlord who seems to be both.
There are a whole lot of threads on here. Without some link or linking comment to where it started someone not already part of it has no way to know its a continuation.
Without that link, looked at alone, the thread looks like baiting to me.
I'll take your word on your intent and if you feel an apology is needed, consider it offered.
Load more comments...