Treaty for Semi-Peaceful Debate

[Solaris]

I can see that in some respects if it was being applied to something else, but to me it'd be like arguing race in terms of black vs. white. Not a good idea.

I don't understand?? Is it just that you don't base your beliefs on rational thought and don't want to admit it?

 

[Krynn72]

I can see that in some respects if it was being applied to something else, but to me it'd be like arguing race in terms of black vs. white. Not a good idea.

Except arguing about differences in white v black people has no basis since there are no significant differences to argue over. Theism v Atheism actually has something substantial to argue over that overrules people's desires not to be offended.

At any rate, the politics section would suck if we weren't allowed to mock idiots.

 

[Shyam]

Noodle,just so you know, I will mock the Republicans, Christian extremists and Islamic extremists, racists etc. Basically if I can't mock people like *Xdrive cough* then politics section would stop being fun.

 

[Solaris]

I think the key is you can only mock people when you're being rational yourself.

 

[Noodle]

The religion thing... I do not want to argue about the existence of God. It is a debate I am simply tired of, and have nothing to gain from but further irritation. I just want to avoid that.

Mocking is fine. Just don't use successful mockery as proof of your own rationality.

 

[Krynn72]

Haha, noodle you're stupid. I'm so much smarter than you will ever be. You and your irrational requests of people. Civility in politics? BAH!

 

[Solaris]

The religion thing... I do not want to argue about the existence of God. It is a debate I am simply tired of, and have nothing to gain from but further irritation. I just want to avoid that.

Mocking is fine. Just don't use successful mockery as proof of your own rationality.

No-one really does that.

I don't understand where your coming from, you've been here for a few months and your not one of the worst or most illogical posters in politics, you far from the best either.

It's why mechagodzilla could post his logical fallacy thread like he did, he was well respected and always logical in his arguments. Reach that standard and then dictate etiquette to us.

 

[Krynn72]

I like the whole "earn our respect and then your ideas will be good" vibe this threads got going.

 

[Noodle]

Points made.

 

[Sparta]

A lot of the debates in this forum usually are quite civil, it's only when someone comes out with some form of prejudice that things can turn ugly, and even then it usually takes a fair bit of that for things to turn ugly.

There is a difference between heated debate and outright shouting matches.

 

[xdrive]

The whole point of discussing things is to find out who is in the wrong so we can mock them.

That's what children do. and no, that is not the point of discussing things even though most of you seem to think it is.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Everyone in this thread is insane except for me.

Although I am beginning to wonder if I myself am insane, but then I remember that if I suspect myself of beimg insane it is clearly a sign of sanity.

 

[Krynn72]

Everyone in this thread is insane except for me.

Although I am beginning to wonder if I myself am insane, but then I remember that if I suspect myself of beimg insane it is clearly a sign of sanity.

Says who? The other voice in your head? I wouldnt trust him too much.

 

[Ennui]

hahahaha yeah right, this thread is the Halflife2.net equivalent of trying to broker peace between Israel and Palestine

 

[Noodle]

Okay, I brought a full thread's worth of wrath down upon me. Points made.

Damn my boredom.

 

[CptStern]

The religion thing... I do not want to argue about the existence of God. It is a debate I am simply tired of, and have nothing to gain from but further irritation. I just want to avoid that.

ok then simply dont involve yourself in that sort of debate. no one is going to crucify you if you dont join in

Mocking is fine. Just don't use successful mockery as proof of your own rationality.

I cant speak for anyone else but I often use mockery as a way of pointing out how the other person's points are ridiculous. usually by using just as ridiculous an example to better illustrate my point. this can be avoided by simply not posting something that most people would find ridiculous

example:

"the universe is 6000 years old because some book said so"

response:

"some book says jews are inferior and should be exterminated, should we start eliminating the jewbs?"




just a little friendly warning Noodle: if you cant stomach criticism of religion hl2.net might not be a good fit for you. we're mostly non religious and against social conservatism for the most part. I for one have little to no respect for religion and am not afraid to show it. I may respect your beliefs in that you have a right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe in but not respecting the religions means I have no qualms about slamming religion whenever the need should arise. if you're going to get irrationally defensive well then you're fair game as well. we ask people to back up their ideas; religion shouldnt get any special cionsideration just because it's based on faith rather than fact. you've allowed yourself to come to some sort acceptance that what you believe in might not stand up to scrutiny and therefore dont bother trying and that's fine but just dont expect us to do the same

 

[Noodle]

Even if the point they made is clearly ridiculous, it may only be clearly ridiculous to you or a few others. And then, like the example you made, you're guilty of putting words in their mouth. Specifically you're putting a slippery-slope fallacy type thing in their mouth, and it ends up as ineffective mockery that just slows any debate.

 

[CptStern]

Even if the point they made is clearly ridiculous, it may only be clearly ridiculous to you or a few others. And then, like the example you made, you're guilty of putting words in their mouth. Specifically you're putting a slippery-slope fallacy type thing in their mouth, and it ends up as ineffective mockery that just slows any debate.

yet you dont even mention that the person making that leap of faith is also making a logical fallacy?

the point is framed in such a way that no one in their right mind would agree with it. it runs parrallel to what the person is saying and is just as ridiculous

 

[jverne]

ok then simply dont involve yourself in that sort of debate. no one is going to crucify you if you dont join in




I cant speak for anyone else but I often use mockery as a way of pointing out how the other person's points are ridiculous. usually by using just as ridiculous an example to better illustrate my point. this can be avoided by simply not posting something that most people would find ridiculous

example:

"the universe is 6000 years old because some book said so"

response:

"some book says jews are inferior and should be exterminated, should we start eliminating the jewbs?"




just a little friendly warning Noodle: if you cant stomach criticism of religion hl2.net might not be a good fit for you. we're mostly non religious and against social conservatism for the most part. I for one have little to no respect for religion and am not afraid to show it. I may respect your beliefs in that you have a right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe in but not respecting the religions means I have no qualms about slamming religion whenever the need should arise. if you're going to get irrationally defensive well then you're fair game as well. we ask people to back up their ideas; religion shouldnt get any special cionsideration just because it's based on faith rather than fact. you've allowed yourself to come to some sort acceptance that what you believe in might not stand up to scrutiny and therefore dont bother trying and that's fine but just dont expect us to do the same

Well technically until something is proven wrong, it can still be valid.

But hey, i'm content with a low statistical probability. :E

 

[Acepilotf14]

Well technically until something is proven wrong, it can still be valid.

But hey, i'm content with a low statistical probability. :E

That is called 'bullshit reasoning' and is not a valid basis for any kind of argument.

I can say witches exist, and since there is no real way to disprove them. But, I'm sure you don't believe in them, but since there's no way to disprove it it's not a logical argument to attempt to.

Same for aliens.
And God.
And a lot of other things.

 

[13LACKBISHOP]

Alright peace. I sign your treaty. I am too lazy to insult anyway.

 

[jverne]

That is called 'bullshit reasoning' and is not a valid basis for any kind of argument.

I can say witches exist, and since there is no real way to disprove them. But, I'm sure you don't believe in them, but since there's no way to disprove it it's not a logical argument to attempt to.

Same for aliens.
And God.
And a lot of other things.

hence the "i'm content with a low statistical probability." part.

The statistical probability of witches existing is probably limiting at zero. Which is safe to say they don't exist.

But if you think of it...why is there a universe, how it came to be, what was before it,... it makes everything seem senseless. It's like children asking "why is that so, and why is that so,..." just that we're ****ing living in it!!! IMO, the search for why everything exist is one of the stupidest branches of science as well as one of the most fascinating.

 

[Noodle]

^All that does is prove that the debate itself is pointless.

I'm fine with religious criticism, I just want to avoid it because I don't want to be grouped in with others based on a religious label. If I say I'm Christian, most fundamentalists would disagree and tell me I'm going to Hell anyway. The Jesus Christ I tend to find is a cross between the one in the Bible and the one in Penny Arcade.

And it's mostly symbolic, anyway. People that take that too literally have issues.

Anyways... so your response to a subjective logical fallacy (based on the level of absurdity)... is to put another fallacy in their mouth? Still, mockery that is based on that is very weak.

 

[No Limit]

^All that does is prove that the debate itself is pointless.

I'm fine with religious criticism, I just want to avoid it because I don't want to be grouped in with others based on a religious label. If I say I'm Christian, most fundamentalists would disagree and tell me I'm going to Hell anyway. The Jesus Christ I tend to find is a cross between the one in the Bible and the one in Penny Arcade.

And it's mostly symbolic, anyway. People that take that too literally have issues.

Anyways... so your response to a subjective logical fallacy (based on the level of absurdity)... is to put another fallacy in their mouth? Still, mockery that is based on that is very weak.

So clearly you don't believe in the bible, right? You agree it was written by men so is probably corrupted by men? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I am my apologies, that's just what I got from your post.

 

[jverne]

^All that does is prove that the debate itself is pointless.

I'm fine with religious criticism, I just want to avoid it because I don't want to be grouped in with others based on a religious label. If I say I'm Christian, most fundamentalists would disagree and tell me I'm going to Hell anyway. The Jesus Christ I tend to find is a cross between the one in the Bible and the one in Penny Arcade.

And it's mostly symbolic, anyway. People that take that too literally have issues.

Anyways... so your response to a subjective logical fallacy (based on the level of absurdity)... is to put another fallacy in their mouth? Still, mockery that is based on that is very weak.

My Jesus is a mix of

cherry sauce

and

=

Do you think my Jesus is worth less than yours? :thumbs:

 

[Noodle]

So clearly you don't believe in the bible, right? You agree it was written by men so is probably corrupted by men? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I am my apologies, that's just what I got from your post.

I don't take the entire thing literally, no. Especially when you consider things that are still open to interpretation (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah). It's not so much that it was directly corrupted intentionally, but you know some things have been altered in translation.

That said, I do still believe in a lot of it. More so the symbolic themes and such. Another way of saying it is that I take Christianity more as a philosophy than a religion.

 

[CptStern]

^All that does is prove that the debate itself is pointless.

I'm fine with religious criticism, I just want to avoid it because I don't want to be grouped in with others based on a religious label. If I say I'm Christian, most fundamentalists would disagree and tell me I'm going to Hell anyway. The Jesus Christ I tend to find is a cross between the one in the Bible and the one in Penny Arcade.

And it's mostly symbolic, anyway. People that take that too literally have issues.

Anyways... so your response to a subjective logical fallacy (based on the level of absurdity)... is to put another fallacy in their mouth? Still, mockery that is based on that is very weak.

what do you think about same sex marriage, abortion etc ..bible doesnt mention either but christianity is pretty vocal on the issue regardless

personally I think iinterpretting your religions official canon is kinda like cherry picking thing you liketo suit your agenda and discarding what you dont like. I'm not sure you can follow one set and ignore the other and still have faith that the whole thing is suspect.

 

[Noodle]

what do you think about same sex marriage, abortion etc ..bible doesnt mention either but christianity is pretty vocal on the issue regardless

personally I think iinterpretting your religions official canon is kinda like cherry picking thing you liketo suit your agenda and discarding what you dont like. I'm not sure you can follow one set and ignore the other and still have faith that the whole thing is suspect.

"Christianity" doesn't say anything. It's not some sort of mass consciousness. That's why there's a butt-load of different denominations. What you here are the fundamentalist evangelicals, who give the rest of us a bad name. They are to Christianity what Sarah Palin is to political conservatism. Embarrassing, and a cause for rabid misinterpretation and over-generalization. If you are going to the whole by a small example, please don't pick the most radical and annoying example you can find.

I think the more prominent themes in the Bible are much less likely to be lost in translation (i.e. Jesus liked peace, Heaven and Hell, etc.). It's not all about picking what parts you want to believe in.

I'm fine with same-sex marriage. I don't think marriage should be political (civil unions for straights and gays and all). The whole idea comes from Sodom and being turned to salt. Even the more modern translations of that event leave ambiguity from it, and I don't think Christ or God would condemn someone for being gay.

I really don't give a **** about abortion. If you're 8 months in, it's wrong. If it still resembles a sea-monkey, it's fine.

 

[CptStern]

"Christianity" doesn't say anything. It's not some sort of mass consciousness. That's why there's a butt-load of different denominations. What you here are the fundamentalist evangelicals, who give the rest of us a bad name.

......but besides the UNited Church of Canada I cant think of a single christian denomionation that performs same sex marriage. in this case ALL christianity (except those belonging to the united church) are fundamentally the same ..on this issue ...in varying degrees of severity. so from "death to gays" to "no homosexual marriage please" ..the message is sort of the same ..at least when it comes to same sex marriage issue: NO to same sex marriage for the sodomites

They are to Christianity what Sarah Palin is to political conservatism. Embarrassing, and a cause for rabid misinterpretation and over-generalization. If you are going to the whole by a small example, please don't pick the most radical and annoying example you can find.

who said anything about Evangelicals. you did. again I stress it doesnt matter if it's evangelicals or radical fundamentlists or laisse faire christians, the answer is the same: no to same sex marriage. in that point you all share that thing in common

I think the more prominent themes in the Bible are much less likely to be lost in translation (i.e. Jesus liked peace, Heaven and Hell, etc.). It's not all about picking what parts you want to believe in.

I'm fine with same-sex marriage. I don't think marriage should be political (civil unions for straights and gays and all). The whole idea comes from Sodom and being turned to salt. Even the more modern translations of that event leave ambiguity from it, and I don't think Christ or God would condemn someone for being gay.

no but he'd deny them a the same rights afforded heterosexuals ...or at least that's what the majority of christdom decided for him ...cuz we cant exactly ask him what he thinks

I really don't give a **** about abortion. If you're 8 months in, it's wrong. If it still resembles a sea-monkey, it's fine.

you dont know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an abortion in the 8th month; that's induced labor; it's not even considered pre-mature at that age. cut off for abortion is 20 weeks; half the maturation time of a human fetus. unless the woman's life is in jeopardy or there are special circumstances.

 

[Tyguy]

This thread encompasses about 9 pages of normal threads.

I LIKE IT!

 

[Noodle]

......but besides the UNited Church of Canada I cant think of a single christian denomionation that performs same sex marriage. in this case ALL christianity (except those belonging to the united church) are fundamentally the same ..on this issue ...in varying degrees of severity. so from "death to gays" to "no homosexual marriage please" ..the message is sort of the same ..at least when it comes to same sex marriage issue: NO to same sex marriage for the sodomites

Ok. The abortion comment was unspecific. I still don't care a lot about that issue.

you dont know what you're talking about. there is no such thing as an abortion in the 8th month; that's induced labor; it's not even considered pre-mature at that age. cut off for abortion is 20 weeks; half the maturation time of a human fetus. unless the woman's life is in jeopardy or there are special circumstances.

At least try to Google it. Or click this link.

Also, which church (if any) a Christian attends does not mean that they follow every single facet of that belief. Again, each Christian is an individual, not part of a mass consciousness. Even if they do attend an openly anti-gay church, it doesn't mean they agree with it entirely. That's true with almost any large group. That's how different churches get started. Calling someone Christian is like calling them a Republican. You can probably guess where they tend to think, politically, but you don't immediately know their individual beliefs.

Besides, there's a massive amount of non-denominational Christians that support gay rights.

All Christianity is NOT fundamentally the same on issues such as that.

 

[CptStern]

Ok. The abortion comment was unspecific. I still don't care a lot about that issue.

you must be an exception because most of christendom does care a hell of a lot about abortion

At least try to Google it. Or click this link.

what you mean like how you googled before posting that 8 month olds can be aborted? in any event you didnt even google correctly because the issue was performing/accepting same-sex marriage not whether or not gays are welcome in particular churches or not.

Also, which church (if any) a Christian attends does not mean that they follow every single facet of that belief.

it doesnt ****ing matter. the issue was same sex marriage and abortion. I really dont care if some guy in butt**** idaho picks and chooses what he wants to believe in or not. the point was christianity as a whole; the institution not it's freakin laymen members

Again, each Christian is an individual, not part of a mass consciousness. Even if they do attend an openly anti-gay church, it doesn't mean they agree with it entirely. That's true with almost any large group. That's how different churches get started. Calling someone Christian is like calling them a Republican. You can probably guess where they tend to think, politically, but you don't immediately know their individual beliefs.

Besides, there's a massive amount of non-denominational Christians that support gay rights.

All Christianity is NOT fundamentally the same on issues such as that.

again. I'm not talking about individuals but rather christianity as a whole. Christianity is overwelmingly anti-abortion and anti-same-sex marriage. there is no disputing this as it is official policy in the overwelming majority of groups who call themselves christian is some way shape or form

 

[No Limit]

"Christianity" doesn't say anything. It's not some sort of mass consciousness. That's why there's a butt-load of different denominations. What you here are the fundamentalist evangelicals, who give the rest of us a bad name. They are to Christianity what Sarah Palin is to political conservatism. Embarrassing, and a cause for rabid misinterpretation and over-generalization. If you are going to the whole by a small example, please don't pick the most radical and annoying example you can find.

I hope it doesn't seem like everyone is ganging up on you but you are really a rare breed around here. It's kind of like if an alien walked in to a bar, people would automatically have a lot of questions.

It sounds like you don't really think the bible is literal and you yourself get to decide what is literal and what isn't. To me that's the final step before you say to yourself that in reality this is all just a bunch of bullshit. If god really wanted to save your soul from the pits of hell by publishing a book why would he leave all the important stuff that you should and shouldn't do open to interpretation? And actually why wouldn't he write this book himself in many languages through Jesus, why leave that very important task to a few men many years later? Surely he knew man could be corrupted since he created them. He also knew that things would get lost in translation, why leave that possibility when he could have just written the book in many languages?

 

[CptStern]

you are really a rare bread around here.

OY GEVALT PASS ME THE PASTRAMI I love rare bread almost as much as challah bread and gefilte fish



bread, noodles ...I'm starting to get hungry

 

[No Limit]

Okay, spelling nazi, fixed.

 

[CptStern]

no no no it's more entertaining this way. need something to counter the "AND THE CHRISITIANS" mood of this thread



oh and lol calling me a "nazi" when I was imitating a jewish person! OY GEVALT REMEMBER THE HOLOCAUST!!! is what they would say

 

[Acepilotf14]

I don't really care for bread with my noodles, I prefer biscuits. Or rolls.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Goddamn, you all suck.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Are you just realizing this now?

 

[No Limit]

Yeah. They do.