(November 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm)Drich Wrote: I did give examples. they were dismissed as not being 'hateful enough' so I pointed to his thread/poll "http://atheistforums.org/thread-15615.html" Where his hate/anger carries over to his own father. I can also point to his current thread/poll where he is currently defending his particular use of 'facts' that supports his title assertion that in the beginning man was stupid." In this thread he starts off discussing biblical passages, and has since turned the conversation to 'facts' he presents to support stereotypes and focoused bigotry he feels is justified for the people who lived in the time, and culture that Genesis was orginally written. He has even attacked the characteristics of the penis' of the men who lived in that region and time. Which is something the Nazis directly did! They did this to dehumanize the Jews. Cinny is doing the same thing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim3.htm

...For what it is worth Alpo..

Please reference me to the posts claiming that his conduct was not 'hateful enough' — those sound like your words, not theirs. For what it's worth, if all you are claiming is that Cinjin's propaganda, and I'm willing to accept it as that, ex hypothesi, may be similar to propaganda used by the Nazis in greater or lesser measure, is the only measure in which he is like a Nazi, then I think you're misappropriating the term. It wasn't using propaganda that earned the Nazis the anathema that the mere word visits today. Things like, killing people, enslaving individuals and whole countries, experimenting on people unethically, and a whole list of other atrocities that I'm sure you're at least minimally aware of are the bedrock of their reputation, not Hitler and Goebbel's colorful rhetoric. If you are claiming Cinjin is a Nazi or like a Nazi because he uses hateful propaganda, then I'd say the analogy is laughable. Beyond that, I see nothing specifically wrong with being a Nazi. The acts of people who call themselves Nazis today and the acts carried out under then Nazi leadership are certainly deplorable, but I don't know that there is anything specific to Nazism itself that is particularly objectionable (or not greatly so, in the scheme of things; a historian and philosopher, in a Youtube video examining the points in common between Nazi philosophy and Nietzsche's philosophy made the comment that history had demonstrated the philosophy of the Nazi party wrong. I realize this was largely rhetorical, but I asked my philosophy group exactly what was wrong with Nazism and the only response I got was nervous laughter. [I restated the question and still got no response]). And you've prompted me to ramble enough to see in what way you, too, are like the Nazis. The Nazis used propaganda to enlist support for questionable programs. Propaganda is typically defined as the use of an emotional appeal, to stir a person to action, in the absence of rational argument. That's exactly what you are doing: you are using the horrific reputation of the German National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) and the programs and pogroms of its leadership to dredge up an emotional response to Cinjin's "hate speech" in the absence of rational argument that, whether Nazi like or not, there are rational reasons for opposing his actions. Now since Cinjin isn't going around gassing Christians and conducting anesthesia free experiments on Fundamentalists (to the best of my knowledge), I challenge you to provide the rational reason his behavior is either unethical, irrational, or unwise or whatever reason you want to argue — aside from your simply not liking it because he is mocking something that you take seriously. Exactly what is wrong with Cinjin's behavior, independent of your attempt to invoke a bellwether of sympathy or unease by reminding people of the acts — the acts, mind you — of men acting and speaking similarly. The ball is in your court.

(November 11, 2012 at 10:45 am)apophenia Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='361104' dateline='1352584624']
I did give examples. They were dismissed as not being 'hateful enough' so I pointed to his thread/poll "http://atheistforums.org/thread-15615.html" Where his hate/anger carries over to his own father. I can also point to his current thread/poll where he is currently defending his particular use of 'facts' that supports his title assertion that in the beginning man was stupid." In this thread he starts off discussing biblical passages, and has since turned the conversation to 'facts' he presents to support stereotypes and focused bigotry he feels is justified for the people who lived in the time, and culture that Genesis was originally written. He has even attacked the characteristics of the penis' of the men who lived in that region and time. Which is something the Nazis directly did! They did this to dehumanize the Jews. Cinny is doing the same thing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim3.htm

...For what it is worth Alpo..

Quote:Please reference me to the posts claiming that his conduct was not 'hateful enough' —

Do your own research. I took the time to write it the first time and if you want to argue something I wrote then YOU find it, read it and address it yourself.

That said, You did asked a legitimate question. When did I ever identify the use of Nazi style propaganda by cijin? I gave you two specific instances. I ask you to direct yourself to either or both of those two instances and address the two occurrences you have been made aware of and stop trying to introduce red herrings into the conversation.

Quote:And you've prompted me to ramble enough to see in what way you, too, are like the Nazis. The Nazis used propaganda to enlist support for questionable programs. Propaganda is typically defined as the use of an emotional appeal, to stir a person to action, in the absence of rational argument. That's exactly what you are doing: you are using the horrific reputation of the German National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) and the programs and pogroms of its leadership to dredge up an emotional response to Cinjin's "hate speech" in the absence of rational argument that, whether Nazi like or not, there are rational reasons for opposing his actions. Now since Cinjin isn't going around gassing Christians and conducting anesthesia free experiments on Fundamentalists (to the best of my knowledge), I challenge you to provide the rational reason his behavior is either unethical, irrational, or unwise or whatever reason you want to argue — aside from your simply not liking it because he is mocking something that you take seriously. Exactly what is wrong with Cinjin's behavior, independent of your attempt to invoke a bellwether of sympathy or unease by reminding people of the acts — the acts, mind you — of men acting and speaking similarly. The ball is in your court.

Actually it hit the net and bounced back. For if you took the time to research or define the term you are using You would have noticed a slight error in your assertion. Their is one Key element missing from my "Attack" (if you want to call it that) on Cinny that his 'attacks' or propaganda is not lacking:


propaganda
Noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience.

I haven't changed or manipulated anything. I have only ever pointed out where cinny has done this himself. Now you can say My efforts are LIKE propaganda because I am using information to influence public opinion, but there are many ways that preclude my efforts from being actual propaganda. Just like when I said that Cinny's efforts were LIKE Nazi Propaganda, and I list all the similarities. Ultimately though His efforts weren't Nazi Propaganda because their are many differences between What He has done and the purpose of what the Nazis did. That said they still share common threads with the Nazi efforts and his body of work can still be classified as actual propaganda.

(November 11, 2012 at 11:44 am)Drich Wrote:

(November 11, 2012 at 10:45 am)apophenia Wrote:

(November 10, 2012 at 5:57 pm)Drich Wrote: I did give examples. They were dismissed as not being 'hateful enough' so I pointed to his thread/poll "http://atheistforums.org/thread-15615.html" Where his hate/anger carries over to his own father. I can also point to his current thread/poll where he is currently defending his particular use of 'facts' that supports his title assertion that in the beginning man was stupid." In this thread he starts off discussing biblical passages, and has since turned the conversation to 'facts' he presents to support stereotypes and focused bigotry he feels is justified for the people who lived in the time, and culture that Genesis was originally written. He has even attacked the characteristics of the penis' of the men who lived in that region and time. Which is something the Nazis directly did! They did this to dehumanize the Jews. Cinny is doing the same thing.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim3.htm

...For what it is worth Alpo..

Quote:Please reference me to the posts claiming that his conduct was not 'hateful enough' —

Do your own research. I took the time to write it the first time and if you want to argue something I wrote then YOU find it, read it and address it yourself.

Fair enough. You want to be uncivil and unkind, I can be as well. The bulk of my reply will have to wait, but I wish to point out something below. (By the way, asking for a complete citation when someone is presenting evidence is generally considered a perfectly legitimate request.)


It appears that you have quoted the following from Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and the supplementary information accompanying the definition of the word propaganda. (ETA: This appears to derive from the Britannica Concise, which I can't locate at the moment.)

Quote:propaganda
Noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience.

And immediately below that the claim that you haven't, "changed or manipulated anything." However, if we but quote the rest of the passage you are citing, then it's clear that you are manipulating all of us here by misleadingly failing to quote an importantly relevant portion of your own chosen authority. The "Concise Encyclopedia" goes on to state that, "Lobbying, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda..." (emphasis mine) It would appear that by both definitions (misleading, manipulating — your words, and that of your source), you are engaged in propaganda. Moreover, you're being far more dishonest, I think, in your efforts, than Cinjin ever has been. Moreover, something else has been pointed out to me yesterday. It has been stated that one is entitled to one's opinions, but not one's facts. But this is a distortion, because there exists a sea of facts among which we all pick and choose those we consider relevant and important to our opinions, you no less than anyone else. So we are entitled to choose our opinions in a biased manner, but we likewise cannot help but bias our selection of facts as well. You are no less guilty of this in choosing to present those aspects of your dream experience which you find compelling, and neglecting to also present the research showing how dream prophecy, prophecy of religious nature, and prophecy in general are wholly and categorically unreliable. You chose to manipulate and mislead us by selecting certain facts to highlight, and other facts to ignore. If you maintain that you have not done this, in spite of your claims otherwise, you are either lying, deluded, or too stupid to breathe.

(By the way, I do not particularly care for use of derogatory smileys in a polite conversation when used simply as an excessive display of contempt for the person you are speaking with. I consider it both arrogant and uncivil.)

(November 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm)apophenia Wrote: (By the way, asking for a complete citation when someone is presenting evidence is generally considered a perfectly legitimate request.)

I deemed it unreasonable when two complete citations were presented and STILL Have not been addressed in favor of this red herring expedition. Address the two 'citation' where Cinny has left Nazi style propaganda and I will consider the previous request.

Quote:It appears that you have quoted the following from Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and the supplementary information accompanying the definition of the word propaganda. (ETA: This appears to derive from the Britannica Concise, which I can't locate at the moment.)
propaganda
Noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience.

Quote:And immediately below that the claim that you haven't, "changed or manipulated anything."

Strawman.
This is you changing and manipulating. You sir are the worst kind of a hypocrite.

Quote:However, if we but quote the rest of the passage you are citing, then it's clear that you are manipulating all of us here by misleadingly failing to quote an importantly relevant portion of your own chosen authority. The "Concise Encyclopedia" goes on to state that, "Lobbying, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda..." (emphasis mine) It would appear that by both definitions (misleading, manipulating — your words, and that of your source), you are engaged in propaganda. Moreover, you're being far more dishonest, I think, in your efforts, than Cinjin ever has been. Moreover, something else has been pointed out to me yesterday. It has been stated that one is entitled to one's opinions, but not one's facts. But this is a distortion, because there exists a sea of facts among which we all pick and choose those we consider relevant and important to our opinions, you no less than anyone else. So we are entitled to choose our opinions in a biased manner, but we likewise cannot help but bias our selection of facts as well. You are no less guilty of this in choosing to present those aspects of your dream experience which you find compelling, and neglecting to also present the research showing how dream prophecy, prophecy of religious nature, and prophecy in general are wholly and categorically unreliable. You chose to manipulate and mislead us by selecting certain facts to highlight, and other facts to ignore. If you maintain that you have not done this, in spite of your claims otherwise, you are either lying, deluded, or too stupid to breathe..)

A Christian missionary can be defined as "one who is to witness across cultures."[2] The Lausanne Congress of 1974, defined the term, related to Christian mission as, "to form a viable indigenous church-planting movement." Missionaries can be found in many countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary

Hate to break it to you champ, but cinny is a native, and if you are partial to the 1974 definition, know in your heart of hearts I am not here to 'plant a church.' "Your serve hits the net again, and bounces back into your court."

You know if you keep trying Maybe I will feel sorry for you and let one get by me, OR maybe you'll get lucky and do it on your own accord.

Quote:(By the way, I do not particularly care for use of derogatory smileys in a polite conversation when used simply as an excessive display of contempt for the person you are speaking with. I consider it both arrogant and uncivil

So? Isn't telling someone they are unfit to breath for any reason abit arrogant and uncivil? See Alpo, Hypocrites do not get to make 'observations' like the one you made, and still have them count for anything.

Goodbye, Drich. I have no use for you nor desire to waste my world on you.

By the way, I am not a sir. I realize it's a subtle thing for you to pick up on, so I'll help you out this one last time.

I haven't read all of this, but I have read a good part. Drich, please stop it with the double standard. You have told me that I need to A/S/K for god in order to find him. When I told you (this was all in another thread) that I was once a believer, you said I didn't truly ask. When I pointed out that one of the members where was once a pastor, you suggested that someone may become for selfish reasons, or something to that effect, and that the insincerity of it would not allow them to see god. So I ask, how much more insincere can one get that going to church to get someone to a girl to like them? You were clearly not A/S/King, but you still had a 'revelation' in the form of a bad dream. You then go on to say that just because something is natural and perfectly explainable scientifically doesn't mean an undetectable omnipotent being with infinite knowledge of the universe couldn't have telepathically sent it to you as a sign. One cannot possibly argue with stubbornness on this level, so I will not even waste my time trying.

---

Nazi propoganda? You mean like this:

Well, of course not. But you must remember, the nazis were anti-semantic, but not anti-religious in general.

(November 12, 2012 at 12:11 am)Darkstar Wrote: I haven't read all of this, but I have read a good part. Drich, please stop it with the double standard. You have told me that I need to A/S/K for god in order to find him. When I told you (this was all in another thread) that I was once a believer, you said I didn't truly ask.

when and where?

Quote:When I pointed out that one of the members where was once a pastor, you suggested that someone may become for selfish reasons, or something to that effect, and that the insincerity of it would not allow them to see god.

when and where?

Quote: So I ask, how much more insincere can one get that going to church to get someone to a girl to like them?

I went for a girl without a doubt. But I did not stay because of the girl. The time spent chasing a girl was a waist of time. I did not learn nor did i experience anything.

Quote: You were clearly not A/S/King, but you still had a 'revelation' in the form of a bad dream.

Not while I was chasing tail, no. My 'revelation came after she started dating someone else. I felt like I was tricked into going to church and for a time I lashed back at God. I looked for him A/S/K just to spit in His eye. Maybe that is why I got to look Him in the eye. Kind of a chrushing moment that was...

Quote:You then go on to say that just because something is natural and perfectly explainable scientifically doesn't mean an undetectable omnipotent being with infinite knowledge of the universe couldn't have telepathically sent it to you as a sign.

when and where?
That is the problem here. You think you have a complete story and you haven't even scratched the surface. every event, happening, circumstance.. All of it is made clear in the details. I put out the high points of this story waiting for one of you to ask a question that would allow me to go deeper into this story, but all I have gotten back is more crap like what you just posted. You challenge what you do not understand or what is not familiar to you, because why is this guy/me special? Why haven't I/you experienced anything remotely close to what he/me has seen?

I can tell you why and I can show you how to be given another chance to commune with God... I am apart of the A/S/K process, and all the loudest of you can do is try and change the subject or default to the same old arguements. Why not just ASK a question rather than assume you know the answer.

Quote:One cannot possibly argue with stubbornness on this level, so I will not even waste my time trying.

---

Nazi propaganda? You mean like this:

Well, of course not. But you must remember, the Nazis were anti-semantic, but not anti-religious in general.

Actually, no.
More like this:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim5.htm
It started with the memo above distancing Nazis from the Political aspect of the Church in 1935, and then in 1941 it severed all ties from the church all together.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/koehler.htm

Your example is not actually any type of recognized Nazi propaganda. (As the Nazi Party had absolutely no affiliation with any form of the church.) It how ever is exactly the type of hate/propaganda that does indeed Harkens back to the methods and Tactics Gerbils would have been proud of. (Minus the actual content of course.)

As now you have been made aware the Nazi party did not have any affiliation with the Church what so ever, so they wouldn't have ever fought for it. You picture is just a poor photoshoped example of an atheist doing whatever it takes to try and win an argument. Ironically the fool who originally created this image (and everyone who has used it for it's intended purpose since) has had to sell their souls to the very same process men like Hitler and Gerbils did for the very same reason. To try and win hearts and minds by twisting the facts to suit their/your agenda. You like cinny, had proved you are cut from the same cloth these men were. Congrats on establishing yourself as a 'do what ever it takes' kinda man.[/quote]

---

(November 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Goodbye, Drich. I have no use for you nor desire to waste my world on you.

By the way, I am not a sir. I realize it's a subtle thing for you to pick up on, so I'll help you out this one last time.

Sorry, I should have just let you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9gjW9RmkpY

Drich Wrote:Ironically the fool who originally created this image (and everyone who has used it for it's intended purpose since) has had to sell their souls to the very same process men like Hitler and Gerbils did for the very same reason.

(November 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Ironically the fool who originally created this image (and everyone who has used it for it's intended purpose since) has had to sell their souls to the very same process men like Hitler and Gerbils did for the very same reason.

Deleted. Unkind and unprovoked comments made me feel a little dirty. Sorry Dritch.