Feigned indignation and false maryterdom complex

[NoMoreFaith]

"The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, way to fire at friendly Brian, I'm all about calling idiotic shit idiotic shit, no apologies, ask around..lol.

[downbeatplumb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt8_HybhM5Q

[Brian37]

"The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson

BINGO! Thank you and someone who gets it.

Now in all seriousness and to even placate my detractors here I want to state a bottom line that I think everyone is capable of valuing.

I promise every believer here and even the atheists I have duked it out with here if you were bleeding in the street I would lend you aid. If a believer gave me CPR I wouldn't be concerned with their beliefs. If these same people whom I bluntly disagree with wanted to marry into my family or if they were my kid(don't have one), the mere fact that they might hold a position that might drive me nuts, that lone would not be a reason to disown them.

Now I do have an older brother who is a fundy I don't have any contact with. But not because he is a fundy, but even outside the issue of religion he has acted like everything in life is life and death and even physically threatened me over an issue he was not involved in.

We once played a game of pool and no bets no competition, just a game, at a bar and through the first game he said nothing, finally his seriousness about a non serious situation got to me and I asked "Why arn't you talking to me?" His response almost shouting " You didn't think I would let you just beat me". HOLY SHIT! That is just one, but of several reasons I have no contact with him, but none of it is because he believes.

On the other hand I delivered pizza near Falwell's collage, and worked with wonderful students of his and many of them agreed with me that some of the stuff he would say they wish he would STFU.

Two of the most wonderful bosses I had were students there. So it is the INDIVIDUAL I value, not what they believe.

On the other hand, the rest of my family I get along with and they believe the same things my brother does.

So the point is we CAN offend each other without taking it personally and we can still be friends even if we drive each other nuts on certain issues. The founders of this country wouldn't have been able to do it if they disowned each other when they got pissed about the position or words of the other. It is a complete myth that they all agreed and always liked each other. Jefferson and Adams were polar opposites and hated the others tactics and even for a while did not speak to each other.

It isn't that we should ALWAYS go out of the way to hurt someone else, none of us like getting our feelings hurt. But equally wrong is the unreasonable expectation that you should always walk on eggshells to keep someone else happy.

I have been though too many unhealthy friendships and even one girlfriend to know when people start demanding that you never raise any kind of objection because of some insecurity they may have, it is oppressive to you and a denial of self.

We as a species will NEVER agree on all things all the time. It is reasonable to make a request, and if that person consents to it, that is one thing. But if you make the request, and they say no and you still go back to them, then all you are doing is torturing yourself.

When I don't like someone I either put up with it DEPENDING on context, or I avoid them. What is unreasonable is to expect them to deny themselves and bow to me. I have control over myself, not others.

[Faith No More]

No one here, as far as I've seen, has ever said you can't swear or offend people. As you said, it is nearly impossible to avoid offending someone in a religious debate, especially when one side believes you will burn in an eternal fire for not being one of them. What I hear from you, however, are poorly reasoned excuses to stoop to their level while attempting to hold onto the idea that you are merely trying to change their mind. You can call people assholes all you want, but as it has been pointed out here multiple times, if your goal is to change another's mind, calling them 'stupid fuckheads' isn't exactly going to be productive.

[Tempus]

I like to imagine I've mellowed out, but most days I end up typing an angry response, pausing, and closing the tab without submitting.

I do that a lot.

Because "You're a monstrous idiot for X,Y,Z and a fucking moron" doesn't work as well as "X,Y,Z are inconsistent and wrong. Your argument is weak".

Exactly.

Insults rarely contribute anything to a discussion

"Atheist" is a word, and is viewed as an insult to many theists, so wrong again (...) You view an insult as merely being a word, but it isn't one word, it can be a person's perception that an idea or something that goes against their social norms can "insult" them.

Atheist is a word?! Well I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie! Take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive!

Yes, things not intended as insults can still be interpreted as such. I think my post makes it clear that I'm talking about intended insults, and if it doesn't it's clear now. If someone mistakenly interprets something I've said as an insult, or sees my beliefs or lack thereof as offensive, I correct them. If they persist I simply don't bother with them.

If we banned cussing in every context we would not have great comedians like George Carlin (...) I do not object to arguments of context as to when and where cussing is appropriate. I do object to any solution that uses "never". Not just on the issue of words, but anything in life. Nothing in life is black or white or either/or.

I don't know whether this part is still a response to my post, but I didn't say people should never swear or never insult. I enjoy watching Bill Hicks and think I'd be worse off without such comedy to enjoy. I'm heavily against political correctness - I choose to be polite, but blunt. I'd elaborate but I'd just be reiterating points that have already been made.

[Welsh cake]

The jesus freaks pull out the "I'm offended" card when they find that their holy drivel makes no impact and they get told off.

Personally, I'm sick of their shit. Most of them don't want to learn anything.

Exactly.

One conversation I (a) had with a Bible thumper (b) could be summed up as the following exchange:

a: "I don't believe in your god, and see no reason why anyone with an ounce of sense or decency should either."
b: "You are Satan! You're going to hell for all eternity and you will burn forever more!"
a: "Fuck you and your dark ages dogmatic drivel."
b: "Help! I'm being sworn at! The atheists are persecuting me!"

[Whateverist]

The jesus freaks pull out the "I'm offended" card when they find that their holy drivel makes no impact and they get told off.

Personally, I'm sick of their shit. Most of them don't want to learn anything.

You are so wonderfully succinct. Thank you.

On the other hand, aren't you offended when theists say obstinately ignorant things? Being offended is fine. Expressing it is fine. Expecting censorship isn't.

[Brian37]

I like to imagine I've mellowed out, but most days I end up typing an angry response, pausing, and closing the tab without submitting.

I do that a lot.

Because "You're a monstrous idiot for X,Y,Z and a fucking moron" doesn't work as well as "X,Y,Z are inconsistent and wrong. Your argument is weak".

Exactly.

"Atheist" is a word, and is viewed as an insult to many theists, so wrong again (...) You view an insult as merely being a word, but it isn't one word, it can be a person's perception that an idea or something that goes against their social norms can "insult" them.

Atheist is a word?! Well I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. Chewie! Take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive!

Yes, things not intended as insults can still be interpreted as such. I think my post makes it clear that I'm talking about intended insults, and if it doesn't it's clear now. If someone mistakenly interprets something I've said as an insult, or sees my beliefs or lack thereof as offensive, I correct them. If they persist I simply don't bother with them.

If we banned cussing in every context we would not have great comedians like George Carlin (...) I do not object to arguments of context as to when and where cussing is appropriate. I do object to any solution that uses "never". Not just on the issue of words, but anything in life. Nothing in life is black or white or either/or.

I don't know whether this part is still a response to my post, but I didn't say people should never swear or never insult. I enjoy watching Bill Hicks.

Now you want to make the distinction between "unintended and intended" "insults".

Same rules, at least for me apply, I cant speak for any other human. The rule is "depends on context". Every situation to me regardless of topic is case by case.

I think the best policy in dealing with someone you don't like is to either put up with them, if it is tolerable, or stay away from them. But you cant force someone to always be like you or always agree with you. If you chose to engage someone knowing their history it can only be up to you what you do.

As far as the comedy comment, that was a general quote for everyone. It is possible to quote someone but also at the same time make general statements for the benefit of the reader.

And what is wrong with Chewie? Love that furry oaf.

[Autumnlicious]

I'd like to point out that often in a discussion with an ideologue, you are as much making a case for your position to the ideologue as you are making a case to the audience.

Another reason to be less "You're an idiot" and more "You show a poor understanding of X,Y,Z. Perhaps you should inspect things more carefully before mouthing off."

Our personal attacks clause is often relaxed when the poster engages in clever aphorisms and displays an understanding of wit.

The clause, consequently, is strongest against "You're a douchebag loser crack addict."