(February 16, 2012 at 6:17 pm)padraic Wrote: Your basic position is that if a person acts from conviction then they are worthy of respect. THAT is a shallow and simplistic position,which you have tried (unsuccessfully) to justify by special pleading and equivocation.

No padraic, that is certainly not what I said and I have not changed a thing. My original words are pasted below to make that absolutely clear. You are making the mistake of paraphrasing Epi's twisted version of my words, not my words. All I am advocating is that we be fair to all people including fools and villains and retain our ability to admire their good qualities whilst at the same time deploring their bad ones. That is very clearly expressed, right from the start. Here are my actual words. To make it even easier for you to understand I have put his quality in bold and I have underlined the condemnation.

1. My comment on the oaf in the video: "Whilst I do not accept a single thing he was saying (or believing) I didn't see him as any more deluded or ignorant than the majority of Christians. The prime difference is that he was brave enough to stand up and shout about it. You've got to admire him for that but at the same time you've got to laugh in his face... .......no one in the video managed to challenge the idiot in an effective way. .."

You can not possibly read your words into my statement. It is perfectly clear that I am admiring his bravery and deploring everything else.

2. My comment on Hitler: 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.


You can not possibly read your words into my statement. It is perfectly clear that I am 'admiring the amazing, good things that he achieved'. The average human mind is quite capable of considering separately the achievement and the person. I am quite sure you will understand the distinction very clearly.

Rather than you keeping on trying to tell me what you think I think, a stupid exercise, why not read what I actually said? Why is it you and a couple of others feel compelled to twist words and then mock those twisted words? Does it make you feel clever? How about proving how clever you are and addressing the real issue.

(February 16, 2012 at 9:20 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions."

You can take that rot and keep it. It is silly.

You have been absolutely consistent in your avoidance of truth. Well done.

Try reading my actual words and explaining how many imaginative leaps you have to make to get to your twisted version of them. See my response to padraic above.


If I were to say, 'I admire anyone with ...... convictions', that would be pretty silly as there is nothing about convictions to admire. Convictions are whatever they are and there is nothing we can do about them (at some point they may change). Some people have very strange convictions for a variety of reasons but most convictions are innate. If you have a conviction that there are dangerous aliens amongst us, that can not admirable or anything else, it is simply a conviction (until it changes).

If I were to say, 'I admire anyone with courage......', you would understand that I was admiring their courage, whether you agreed with me would be irrelevant.

Now, if we string the two together, 'I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions', why do you suddenly think I am admiring them or their convictions? Having a conviction takes no courage at all but sometimes acting upon your convictions (like the oaf) does take courage. Why do you suddenly think that I am admiring them and not just their courage or achievements bearing in mind that is exactly what I said I was admiring and that I also called them 'evil, fool, oaf, idiot, madman, the most evil, etc'? I am genuinely interested to see how your mind works.

---

(February 16, 2012 at 9:58 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I have a deep, profound respect for people like James the pleasant preacher, although not for the views they hold which are frankly disgusting. However they at least make a serious effort to do this biblical command as much as humanly possible.

Given the ongoing argument here I'm not sure if this is a genuine declaration or sarcasm intended to provoke a reaction.

Regardless of your intention, I think it is only fair to respect people even if you do not agree with them. How else are they going to respect you? If they also put themselves in danger (real or imagined) because of their convictions I can also admire their bravery even if they are doing a stupid or foolish thing. I stop short of your 'deep and profound' but otherwise I agree with you.

Not that interested in your words. I have plenty of my own and thoughts too.

Courage, hey? How do you know he isn't simply rash? If his boldness stems from insanity it hardly counts as courage. Belligerence isn't courage. Being swept away by anger and hatred isn't courage.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. But you may be curious why so many are reacting as we do to the way you are expressing it. Or not.

Quote:Rather than you keeping on trying to tell me what you think I think, a stupid exercise, why not read what I actually said? Why is it you and a couple of others feel compelled to twist words and then mock those twisted words? Does it make you feel clever? How about proving how clever you are and addressing the real issue.

Sarcasms right?

(February 17, 2012 at 8:38 am)whateverist Wrote: Courage, hey? How do you know he isn't simply rash? If his boldness stems from insanity it hardly counts as courage. Belligerence isn't courage. Being swept away by anger and hatred isn't courage.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. But you may be curious why so many are reacting as we do to the way you are expressing it.

1. I do think he is being rash but possibly not in the sense you mean (see 4).
2. Insanity - that's a big leap in the dark! I see no reason to think him insane.
3. Belligerence certainly takes courage if you think you may be attacked for it.
4. He is not being swept away by anger and hatred, he has a clear plan.

Yes, I am curious why a few people don't understand my perfectly clear words and feel the need to twist them (not you). Could it be that they are all just reading Epi's twisted version of my words and not my actual words? I am also curious why no one has risen to the challenge yet. Is it that they are all incapable or do they just want to mock for the infantile fun of it?

Next please.

---

(February 17, 2012 at 10:17 am)renew Wrote:

Quote:Rather than you keeping on trying to tell me what you think I think, a stupid exercise, why not read what I actually said? Why is it you and a couple of others feel compelled to twist words and then mock those twisted words? Does it make you feel clever? How about proving how clever you are and addressing the real issue.

Sarcasms right?

Which bit(s) do you assume is sarcasm?

Quote:Which bit(s) do you assume is sarcasm?

Me?None. You lack the wit to be sarcastic.

(February 17, 2012 at 10:53 am)Aardverk Wrote:

(February 17, 2012 at 8:38 am)whateverist Wrote: Courage, hey? How do you know he isn't simply rash? If his boldness stems from insanity it hardly counts as courage. Belligerence isn't courage. Being swept away by anger and hatred isn't courage.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. But you may be curious why so many are reacting as we do to the way you are expressing it.

1. I do think he is being rash but possibly not in the sense you mean (see 4).
2. Insanity - that's a big leap in the dark! I see no reason to think him insane.
3. Belligerence certainly takes courage if you think you may be attacked for it.
4. He is not being swept away by anger and hatred, he has a clear plan.

Yes, I am curious why a few people don't understand my perfectly clear words and feel the need to twist them (not you). Could it be that they are all just reading Epi's twisted version of my words and not my actual words? I am also curious why no one has risen to the challenge yet. Is it that they are all incapable or do they just want to mock for the infantile fun of it?

The preacher struck me as very highly agitated. I have to think the camera in the hand of his woman servant is a measure he took to protect himself from the retaliation he fears. You're saying in the face of that fear, he none the less is relentless in carrying out his verbal attack on the atheists. Given that the preacher is a monster and a tyrant with an agenda, he sure does lash out with malice and cruelty energetically to inflict the most harm as possible on those he hates. I suppose I can concede the point. It isn't that his 'courage' ameliorates the loathing we must all feel toward him in any way.

What goes against the grain for me is that he isn't incurring the risk reluctantly out of necessity. If the person who kills the enemy that is about to kill me is motivated more by a desire to kill rather than to save me, was he courageous or just monstrous? What the preacher does seems more gratuitous than necessary to me. What really does he hope to accomplish? He isn't going to win any converts. He is simply lashing out against those who reject his world view. There isn't any nobility in it, no discernible purpose served. If the preacher is motivated by his enjoyment cruelty and venting his spleen then courage may not be the right word. He certainly isn't a coward either. I think he is just brash.

(February 17, 2012 at 10:53 am)Aardverk Wrote: Which bit(s) do you assume is sarcasm?

Truly, I do not prefer the use of the word assume, nothing good comes from it.

Knowing that your view and definment of courage is not the same as mine. For one to overcome cancer, addiction, unhealthly subjects to me shows courage, a child fighting back an abductor and winning, placing ones life in harms way to save another, that to me is courage. Reason is behind courage.

Passion is what drives most people to stand on their soapbox, the desire for someone to understand. However, this man falls short, due to there was no understanding coming from him, what information he had to offer became null and void due to he had no reasoning behind it.

So you live in your world of courage and I will live in my world of courage.

p.s. you know the little history lesson you gave on women, thanks, wasn't aware of it being a woman and all. BAZINGA !!!!!!!

(February 17, 2012 at 9:13 pm)whateverist Wrote: The preacher struck me as very highly agitated. I have to think the camera in the hand of his woman servant is a measure he took to protect himself from the retaliation he fears. You're saying in the face of that fear, he none the less is relentless in carrying out his verbal attack on the atheists. Given that the preacher is a monster and a tyrant with an agenda, he sure does lash out with malice and cruelty energetically to inflict the most harm as possible on those he hates. I suppose I can concede the point. It isn't that his 'courage' ameliorates the loathing we must all feel toward him in any way.

What goes against the grain for me is that he isn't incurring the risk reluctantly out of necessity. If the person who kills the enemy that is about to kill me is motivated more by a desire to kill rather than to save me, was he courageous or just monstrous? What the preacher does seems more gratuitous than necessary to me. What really does he hope to accomplish? He isn't going to win any converts. He is simply lashing out against those who reject his world view. There isn't any nobility in it, no discernible purpose served. If the preacher is motivated by his enjoyment cruelty and venting his spleen then courage may not be the right word. He certainly isn't a coward either. I think he is just brash.

You are absolutely spot on from beginning to end Whateverist. Thank you for expressing it so clearly.

I have absolutely no idea why some people appear to struggle with the concepts.

---

(February 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:Which bit(s) do you assume is sarcasm?

Me?None. You lack the wit to be sarcastic.

Isn't sarcasm said to be the lowest form of humour padraic? I actually have little sense of humour and what I have I try to use at a higher levels than sarcasm.

Perhaps it is better a lack of wit than a lack of ability to explain why you think we should be unfair to fools and villains. Have you thought of a valid reason yet?

Unfair to villains, Aard? Your problem there is that you seem to want to reach out to them through admiration of some quality which is nebulous in its capacity to be admired, whereas many have explained why doing so without discretion is the mark of a fool. Simply put, despite your attempt at popular appeal through Kennedy and Bush, there is nothing to admire in Hitler, nor is there a reason to attempt to rehabilitate the man. This is why your absolutists statement that we have to admire the fucknut preacher in the OP's post met with disapproval from me and others. We do not "have" to admire him or Hitler, nor is there anything in the actions of either which I find as a compelling cause to do so.