Smut for Smut

[tavarish]

I apologize if you found my post condescending. I can be biting, but I am not without conscience.

I think that handing out porn for bibles will not win the undecideds, the meat and potatoes as you called them. That is my point, that non-believers will laugh, and believers will scoff, but it is nothing more than a college publicity stunt, and one that may damage the overall credibility of your belief structure, even in a small way.

I think I've said I don't think it's an effective way to evangelize, and I think it was done as a direct response to proselytizing religious people on their campus, that's it. It wasn't meant to convert people right off the bat. It can, however, make people curious about their organization since it has gotten a lot of attention.

Immaturity and disrespect are uncool, even if they happen to be on your side of the argument this time. Let me put it another way, these kids are rude and not being very good stewards of their beliefs, but you support them only because they are mocking the bible? If this was some asshole trading Darwins works for Bibles, you'd be in a stitch about it, and it would be the same situation.

Why are they being rude? For handing out porn? If they were kicking people in the shins I could understand. If they were spitting on people I could understand. But by PROTESTING? Seriously, man.

If they're rude or not is completely and utterly irrelevant because it's within their rights to do so. If some people don't like it, they can protest THEM.

I don't support them, much less because they are mocking some holy book. I just thought it was funny, as I do enjoy seeing proselytizing people getting a taste of their own medicine.

Actually Ray Comfort was giving out free copies of "The Origin of the Species" with a 50 page foreword about eugenics and a bunch of other crazy crap that fills people's head up with nonsense. I actually liked the idea, and wanted to know where I could get one, as I could just rip out 50 pages and have a perfectly fine and free copy of the origin of the species.

If someone was giving out bibles in return for Darwin's book, I wouldn't care. It just wouldn't be as funny as smut for smut, as I don't find Christians to be very edgy.

I am not trying to sound mean, don't take it personally. I have very strict rules about sex and my self worth and the way I treat others. I hold these rules dear, and they are important to me. I am proud of them. I don't think less of you for not following my rules, but I do think my rules are "right", so I am at an impasse. I am not the same being you people are. I am not a prude, or afraid of sex or something because I find women shitting in cups and stuff not sexually tantalizing. Please, make that argument, that I have a problem with sex because I am offended by porn. Please. It would be funny.

If you have very strict rules about sex, that's great. Don't tell other people their views are twisted just because they don't coincide with yours, and I'm almost 100 percent positive you are exactly the same being we all are, and subject to the human condition. I never said you have to find scat porn amusing, but don't act like it's the downfall of humanity if some people are into that kind of thing. I don't like it myself, but I'm not going to knock a person that's honest with themselves and admits that they enjoy it, as it could just as well be me in that position at some point in my life.

Think what you will, but I disagree that this stunt will win anyone over to the dark side, and at best plays into making your beliefs look childish and offensive to others. A mature message would be "let's agree to disagree, let's get along" but they opted for "smut for smut".

They're not trying to get converts, they were trying to get attention. You missed the point. And even granting your proposal, a mature message wouldn't get converts either. Public works on sensationalism. It doesn't work on moderation and passive behavior. Also, why would they use "Lets get along" if the other group preaches strictly against their "lifestyle"? If you had a growing number of people (including family members, friends) thinking you deserved to burn for eternity, would you let that go?

It seems like you're a bit out of touch with reality and what actually works to get attention for their cause. It's not violent, it's not hurting anyone, it's not impeding on anyone's rights, but it ruffles the feathers of the people that they targeted. I would think they'd call it a success, even if they didn't get many "converts to the dark side."

We should try to be respectful of others beliefs. Very simple. If you demand that fundies and Catholics respect yours, you in turn have to respect theirs. And if you beliefs are "right" and "provable" by "science", while others beliefs are delusions, you should think very hard about that double standard.

Thanks,
-Pip

You just fell in a hole and I'm not sure you can get yourself out.

Let's take a look at how tolerant, as a whole, religion has been to apostates, non-believers and "false" believers over the last 2000 years. Pro-religious legislation, crusades, theocracies, jihad, fatwa, suicide bombing, mandatory prayer and conversion, the list goes on and on.

Atheism is a rejection of the belief in God. It is not a positive claim, and therefore has no merit in being demonstrated with objective evidence. Claiming that there IS a God assigns properties that can be demonstrated and verifiable, but just haven't been. Therefore it is safe to say, other than delusion and rationalization, there is no good reason to believe in a God or gods with the current knowledge we have. Atheism doesn't default to science, it's simply the lack of belief in God. Nothing more, nothing less.

Respect is all well and good when the "fundies" aren't trying to impose on your rights in every which way and proselytize about eternal damnation because their magical deity told them it was his will. This was a direct result of that.

---

Ironically, the most conservative, god-fearing states are also the biggest consumers of pornography.

Really? : o

I don't disbelieve you... but do you have a link? : o

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16...umers.html


However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.


http://blogs.computerworld.com/online_porn

One key finding: The biggest consumers of online adult entertainment live in the great state of Utah. An average of 5.47 people per 1000 broadband subscribers pay for porn in Orrin Hatch's home state. (Utah also leads in porn consumption among the general population and dial-up users, in case you're wondering.)

It must have been all those Osmonds Gone Wild videos that sent them over the edge.

Close behind Utah with just over five porn subscribers per thousand is Sarah Palin's Alaska. California and New York, on the other hand, average between 2.4 and 2.9 subscriptions per 1000 broadband users, smack dab in the middle of the pack. Overall, eight of Edelman's top 10 porn-consuming states voted for McCain last fall, while six of the least smut-crazed states went for Obama.