The Attack on Christians Continues (by Hiraghm)
Posted by ShrugInArgentina 9 years, 8 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...
Ain't my opinion gonna matter one (sorry, reading a colloquial email from one of my field people) whether someone believes or not gonna make a difference. You want to be an atheist? Go with Ungod. Wiccan? Burn yourself up. Christian? I can hang...
Not my business what someone believes (or doesn't), just like it's not my business what someone does behind closed doors or who they crawl in bed with at night. And that's what's great about these United States of America... we all got the freedom to believe as we want, and do what we want, as long as it's not impinging on someone else. Hell, someone can be an antitheist Leninist-Marxist Pinko that sleeps with sheep... as long as he's not harming me, not only what should I care, but WHY should I care... unless I'm so much of a busybody have to have my nose in everyone else's business. And the dotgov has that one pretty well covered for us.
bwwwahhaaahahahaha. classic susanne
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.
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.
this thread:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/e0...
Is chumming the water for disagreement plain and simple.
Most of us don't think that highly of the nation state anyway, so saying a nation is not Christian is not an insult to Christianity.
Opinion piece from 2011.
A declarative thread title which some people would consider combative (not me oddly enough, but I can see how it looks that way)
But no exposition on what you were looking to discuss, the point you are trying to make or anything else.
To me that is baiting, not debating.
Which doesn't say "Christians need not come in" but what it does do is tell them to not expect to feel welcome.
I agree with the wall of separation, the problem I see is that each side is trying to use the wall to crush the other. Which was never the intent.
As I said earlier if you want to debate, that's fine. But debate requires that a question be asked or a position for debate be stated.
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.
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.
I for one, would like to know how the absence of Christians in the Gulch will result in the rise of Moslem or Communist overlords and, if and when that happens, how the absence of Christians in the Gulch would make any difference in the way the overlords treat atheists.
Any talk about me enslaving you is nonsensical.
hey, what is the overall situation since the default?
And my BS detector just broke the peg...
"But christian gulchers don't get a pass in here on irrational concepts, anymore than you or I. "
BS. You get passes on irrational concepts all the time, and right now db is getting a whale of a pass.
Then they came for the Moochers, and I wasn't a moocher, so I didn't object...
Then they came for the ultra liberals; as I'm not a libtard, I didn't object...
And they came for the pull-mongers and favor-traders, and leftist anarchists, and since Im not any of those (thank God) I not only didn't object, but I cheered as well...
Then they came for us rational thinking objectivists, and I said damn, did he get re-elected for a 3rd term?
They came for the CEOs, but I wasn't a CEO, so I didn't object. They came for the financial institutions, but I wasn't part of a financial institution , so I didn't object. They came for the rich, but I wasn't rich, so I didn't object. ... They came for me, and there was nobody else left to object.
Individuals who appreciate Atlas Shrugged do NOT play the victim! up is down!
And someone with a more sensitive disposition might call the GHB exclamation an intentional slight/provocation. Not me, I can take a joke.
The presence or absence of Christians in the gulch is unrelated; Islam and communism are on the rise, the latter particularly in the U.S.
And who's going to fight them? You? You going to "reason" them in to peaceful co-existence? Are you going to wave AS at them and *poof*, they disappear, or turn into rational little lambs?
The absence of Christians fighting Islam and communism FOR YOU in the real world will result in the latter two winning. And all you'll have to fight them off is your "reason". Billions of them, led by real bad guys who laugh at the straw men the villains of AS are.
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.
But if you are so intolerant of what he and others have to say (me?), then I think that you might not be so secure in your own philosophy.
He-who-must-remain-invisible can’t control his mouth, period. Nobody is complaining bout what he believes in or whether or not he can adapt; (although... we did use to waste a lot of time on his opinions); it’s that acid-dripping tongue that gets him into trouble, nowadays.
Different times had different sensibilities. At one time it was commonplace to refer to various people in various ways that one would consider inappropriate today. Particularly as those who grow older, they can revert to thought processes from younger years.
A=A I stop reading after that.
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?
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.
You'll never intimidate me, my faith is far too solid to be shaken by most of the arguments presented by those here.
I do welcome the challenges, though, as it aids me in understanding my own rationale and reasoning and deepens my faith.
There are some who keep insisting that I need to study Objectivism further. Yet they cannot provide me answers to rather straightforward queries that show that my concerns would be alleviated by further study.
I have my answers. I'm not seeking answers. I do look to understand things that interest me, but only insofar as they actually advance some knowledge. Poor definitional presentation of words that misconstrue concepts that people say presents some new and profound understanding doesn't do it for me. Use the proper terminology so that we communicate effectively.
I try to reason rationally, logically, and with facts. I often get insults and ad hominy's thrown back at me.
I do actually bother about the answers. Unfortunately, I rarely get anything in the form of answer that causes me to see that there is anything new or interesting. As several have said lately, what is often conveyed is nothing more than an echo chamber. Altruism is bad because AR said so. I ask what is altruism, and the response is AR said ..., but there is little challenge to how she twisted and tortured definitions - the two most critical being altruism and selfishness. Why did she see it so critical to do this torturous treatment to the definitions? My theory is that she recognized that many see altruism as a good and selfishness as being bad. She sought to undermine those definitions, so as to undermine those philosophies that recognized those definitions. Had she used proper terminology (from my perspective) of slavery or bondage, and self-interest, it would not have been controversial, would not have been given much attention, and would not have reached as many people. That's my evaluation.
Imagine the reaction if you suggested they needed to study Christianity further...