(February 13, 2012 at 10:08 am)Epimethean Wrote: Sorry, Aard, you said it-we only pointed out the insanity of what you said.

It is pretty pathetic you adding more lies upon your earlier lies. Be a man; tell the truth and see if you can make a logical case for your belief that unfairness to villains and fools is a good thing. Set out the logic properly and I will destroy it for you.

If you can't make a logical case for your beliefs I will happily do it the other way around and set out a logical case in favour of fairness to villains & fools. You can then attempt to disprove it with equal logic. Go on, accept the challenge and see if you can confine yourself to facts and polite reason rather than lies and insults.

I will even let you choose the villain/hero for me to use as an example if you want; so long as I know enough about him/her. Please don't choose Pol Pot, I don't know anything good about him.

If you want to go first, can I suggest that you use Chairman Mao and/or Che Guevara for your examples and explain why we should ignore the good things they did and concentrate only on the bad things.

You have yet to do anything but prove that you admire conviction no matter what its result. It has been demonstrated to you that this is a foolish and ill-thought conceit. That is the end of it. You destroy nothing so well as your own credibility by asserting your belief structure so ardently.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:44 am)Epimethean Wrote: You have yet to do anything but prove that you admire conviction no matter what its result. It has been demonstrated to you that this is a foolish and ill-thought conceit. You destroy nothing so well as your own credibility by asserting your belief structure so ardently.

I do pity you Epi; it is almost embarrassing to point out so many glaring errors in such a short paragraph.

1. Where did I say I 'admire conviction'?
2. Where 'no matter what its result'?
3. Where has anything been demonstrated to me?
4. Where is my 'foolish and ill-thought conceit' demonstrated?
5. Where have I 'asserted my belief structure'?
6. You say that I, 'have yet to do anything but....' yet you ignore the fact that I slapped you in the face with the gauntlet of logic and you ignored the challenge.

Have another go and see if you can string a bit of truth and logic together. In the mean time I will simply repeat my complete disagreement with your view that we should all be unfair to villains.

I believe that we should be fair to everyone, even to villains and fools. That is the fundamental core of 'justice'. I will hold that view until someone points out logically what is wrong with me holding that view. Twisting my words and then mocking those twisted words will not suffice Epi.

Fred Phelps would be proud.

Somehow I'm not offended being told I have a tiny brain by people who believe in talking snakes, global floods, and magical Jewish zombies. I wish he'd gone over to that woman with the video camera and asked her if she agreed that she shouldn't have the right to vote.

I wonder why this guy and so many like him are so upset with atheists if we're all a bunch of idiots and there's only a few of us? I'm guessing they're really afraid that we have far more influence & power than we actually do.

Quote: The answer is, 'Yes, I would admire you'.

That's what I thought.

Does it make t any difference to you that it is actually illegal to proselytise other religions in Muslim countries? In Malaysia,you would be arrested,gaoled for 2 years and then deported. In Saudi Arabia,you would probably be killed outright by an enraged mob.

I see nothing to admire in arrogant /stupid/ignorant behaviour which shows contempt for the beliefs,rights and feelings of others.That is exactly what the proselytiser does.I despise such people.

I guess we will need to agree to differ.

Aard, next time you want to play the logic game, try to avoid tripping over your own dick. And while you're at it, try to avoid logical fallacies:

"I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions. I certainly don't have to agree with someone to admire them. Hitler was one of the most evil people the world has ever known but the technical, engineering and scientific advances in the Third Reich were incredible. Part of those advances were due to the vision and direction of Hitler. If it had been under the dictatorship of a 'nice' person the world would still be full of admiration for Hitler. The fact that he proved to be mad and evil does not stop me admiring the amazing, good things that he acheived. American investment money came flooding into Germany when Hitler started to turn Germany around in such a spectacular fashion. Both the Bush family and the Kennedy family were high profile investors who admired him greatly so perhaps you will feel that I am in good company whatever your politics are."

Renew Wrote:What is to admire, when one brings a knife to a gun fight?

(February 11, 2012 at 8:30 am)Aardverk Wrote: But he didn't bring a knife to a gun-fight did he. He came along armed only with words. His posse cowered behind him to emphasise that he was all alone and vastly outnumbered by his 'enemy'.

Okay, so his words, what did they accomplish? Did they educate, communicate, improve any thing? Perhaps, he missed the sunday school lesson of do unto others as you would them do to you. I heard no negative comments toward him or his family. Which by all accounts could have been accomplished very easily.

His posse, the wife and daughter not dare do anything without his permission, of course they would stand behind him, they are not allowed to be in front of him. And his son were not cowering behind him, they were just waiting if any physical outburst occurred they would have stepped up and took the beating or gave one before the dad. Rule of thumb protect your leader, standard in combat.

Quote:I do admire him in exactly the same way that I would admire you for doing the same sort of (atheist) thing outside a large Christian gathering

Thanks, but I have no desire to have people want to lay hands on me and start chanting in some strange voices, and asking jesus to remove the demons from me. Tell me I am a Jezebel, and satan sent me to test them. Once was enough for me.

Quote:or a Rangers fan standing alone outside a Celtic fan gathering and bad-mouthing Celtic (Insert team names of your choice).

Even though not big into basketball, except for my son's games, find the sport too noisy. I understand the impact of comparison you are trying to make.

(February 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

OK Epi. I reluctantly have to award you just one point. I did forget using the word 'conviction' but that was not about the oaf in the video, it was a generalisation - hence the word 'anyone'. What I was/am admiring is the 'courage', not the conviction.

My belief in justice and fairness to all remains exactly the same. Once you start treating someone unfairly where will you draw the line? Should homosexuals be treated unfairly, or women or religious people or atheists or rapists or paedophiles? What about if someone is just suspected of committing a crime? Who gets to decide who you can and cannot treat fairly?

---

(February 13, 2012 at 7:20 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote: The answer is, 'Yes, I would admire you'.

That's what I thought.
Does it make t any difference to you that it is actually illegal to proselytise other religions in Muslim countries? In Malaysia,you would be arrested,gaoled for 2 years and then deported. In Saudi Arabia,you would probably be killed outright by an enraged mob.

The legality or otherwise of the act makes no difference to me. In your example I would admire the courage of the individual even more if it were illegal as they are then facing two separate dangers. Please don't forget that I also said that I would think you a fool to do it, it is only the courage that I am admiring in that example.

Quote:I see nothing to admire in arrogant /stupid/ignorant behaviour which shows contempt for the beliefs,rights and feelings of others.That is exactly what the proselytiser does.I despise such people.

I understand your point and agree with much of it. I disagree with the oaf's actions but there are situations that do justify that sort of behaviour. Again, please note that I am not admiring the arrogant/stupid/ignorant behaviour in any of the examples given so far, just the courage.

There are situations where I would agree with the sentiments of the person and admire their courage in breaking the law and putting themselves in extreme danger just to make a point and at the same time deliberately insulting others and causing extreme annoyance to the vast majority who would regard the protester as displaying arrogant/stupid/ignorant behaviour. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the suffragettes but maybe you disapprove of their actions too and perhaps you would have simply dismissed them as arrogant/stupid/ignorant fools.

Quote:I guess we will need to agree to differ.

That's fair enough. I don't expect everyone to agree with me or with the laws of most civilised countries. I would like to make one final point for clarity though.

The suffragettes actions were only taken when every 'normal' process had been exhausted. Many people thought them absolutely mad, indeed some were confined in lunatic asylums for the rest of their lives. Most of us now accept their aims as obvious and natural justice but they had to suffer and die to achieve their perfectly reasonable aims. If I hear someone spouting what I think is rubbish I will probably express my view against their words but I will defend their right to spout their 'rubbish' because they may just have a point that I haven't yet understood AND it would be grossly unfair to gag them as long as they were not inciting hatred.

As far as I am concerned there must be fairness for all, even for villains and fools. Condemnation where condemnation is due and credit where credit is due. Never lose sight of the fact that any one person may be a mixture of both good and bad.

(February 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm)renew Wrote: Okay, so his words, what did they accomplish? Did they educate, communicate, improve any thing?

He achieved absolutely nothing that I am aware of except publicise his denomination's objection to universal suffrage and freedom of sexual preference. As I made very clear, right from the start, I was admiring his courage not his words.

We all have a right to free speech (if we are lucky enough to live in a civilised country) and must therefore suffer fools sometimes exercising their right to speak. If the day comes when you want to stand on your soapbox maybe you will remember the courage of that oaf and be fortified by it.

Once in a while someone shouting from a soapbox may be saying something worth listening to. I assume you are female. Just remember that not many years ago you would not have been allowed to inherit anything if you had a brother, you would have given to your husband any property you owned when you married him, he would have been allowed to beat you whenever he wanted, you would have had no right to institute divorce proceedings, you would not have had any chance of keeping your child upon divorce, you would have had no chance of taking any money or property with you upon divorce, you had no vote and no rights to anything except simply to live. People standing on soapboxes changed all that - so give them a chance please.

What kind of courage is he displaying? The courage to preach his version of Christianity in a country that has a 80% Christian majority, knowing that if he is attacked the police aren't too far away and will likely arrest the offenders based on the evidence of the video his wife was filming? Like was pointed out, try preaching Christianity on the street outside a mosque in Saudi Arabia if you want to be courageous (but stupid).