Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 19, 2022, 4:20 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Smut for Smut
#31
RE: Smut for Smut
(March 10, 2010 at 1:24 am)Synackaon Wrote: 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
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#32
RE: Smut for Smut
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.

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.

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.

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".

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
Reply
#33
RE: Smut for Smut
(March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am)Pippy Wrote: 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.

(March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am)Pippy Wrote: 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.


(March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am)Pippy Wrote: 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.


(March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am)Pippy Wrote: 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."

(March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am)Pippy Wrote: 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.
(March 10, 2010 at 5:53 am)Saerules Wrote:
(March 10, 2010 at 1:24 am)Synackaon Wrote: 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.
Reply
#34
RE: Smut for Smut
(March 10, 2010 at 10:44 am)tavarish Wrote: 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.

so the religious states pay for their porn, maybe the irreligious states get it for free.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#35
RE: Smut for Smut
I was just about to say, the more "liberal" states probably just use torrents Wink
Reply
#36
RE: Smut for Smut
Double kudos to tavarish for kindly posting evidence of my aforementioned claims.

More liberal states are simply consuming less - possibly because their respective population isn't as nearly repressed relative to a more conservative state.
Reply
#37
RE: Smut for Smut
Quote: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.
Let's not. I am not involved in the last 2000 years of religion. Whatever they "did to you" over the last 20 centuries doesn't affect the moral value of trading bibles for porn. Trading bibles for porn is sensationalist and rude, and if you've been treated badly for 2000 years it is still sensationalist and rude. You can't justify acting like an idiot just because other have acted like idiots.

Quote: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.
Oh I fully understand the whole 'I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it' thing. But their rudeness is relevant, in the sense that rudeness is never acceptable behavior.

Quote:I do enjoy seeing proselytizing people getting a taste of their own medicine.
So we're sinking to their level now?

Quote: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'm not saying that your personal views are twisted, and I am a bigger man than you muahahaha! I am allowed to think (out loud) that scat porn is disgusting and a complete waste of time. If you take that personally, I am sorry. The human condition involves an aversion to poop. People's views aren't twisted because they don't coincide with mine. People's views are twisted , and I don't do twisted, so our views don't coincide. It's not bragging to be proud of yourself. Or am I in the wrong for not liking scat porn? I will assimilate further, my apologies.

Quote: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.
I will. If you like porn with shit as the focus, that is sick. I'm sorry if you have some right, but that is just sick. I will never find myself enjoying that. If someone does, I reserve the right to be properly disgusted.

Quote:They're not trying to get converts, they were trying to get attention.
Well, let's all be as juvenile as possible. If what atheism needs is more attention, good or bad, than great. I just wonder if pissing people off on purpose is the most constructive thing.

Trading bibles for porn equates godlessness with something the average believer may find offensive. It's playing into their hand. It's silly and just a stunt to get a rise. I thought yours was a belief structure of rationale and reality? Are these assholes doing it a service?

I just hate porn, and when I saw this kid do a TV spot (the kid in Boston trading bibles for porn), he was belligerent and petty. So I find the whole thing laughable. Not laugh with, laugh at. Please feel free to think whatever you will, though. Please know that these are just my thoughts, and I am neither right not wrong.

Thanks,
-Pip
Reply
#38
RE: Smut for Smut
(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: Let's not. I am not involved in the last 2000 years of religion. Whatever they "did to you" over the last 20 centuries doesn't affect the moral value of trading bibles for porn. Trading bibles for porn is sensationalist and rude, and if you've been treated badly for 2000 years it is still sensationalist and rude. You can't justify acting like an idiot just because other have acted like idiots.

Oh boy. You told me that I should be tolerant of others' beliefs. I gave you specific examples of how those beliefs have committed atrocities within history. Your moral values vary greatly with many others, so it's taken with a grain of salt. I contend that the bible is one of the most immoral books in existence. It is sensationalist and rude, that was the fucking point. Good job, YOU GOT IT!

It's not acting like an idiot, it's actually a pretty well thought out plan involving multiple parties. I'm sure it gets under your skin, but that was the POINT.

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: Oh I fully understand the whole 'I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it' thing. But their rudeness is relevant, in the sense that rudeness is never acceptable behavior.

Cry me a river, cupcake. I told you that this was a result of religious proselytizers, and somehow you don't get it. It wasn't meant to pussyfoot around a subject.

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: So we're sinking to their level now?

And the self-righteous moral high ground makes an appearance. Let's see, how would you deal with proselytizers that impose on your beliefs, social values, and legislation?

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: I'm not saying that your personal views are twisted, and I am a bigger man than you muahahaha! I am allowed to think (out loud) that scat porn is disgusting and a complete waste of time. If you take that personally, I am sorry. The human condition involves an aversion to poop. People's views aren't twisted because they don't coincide with mine. People's views are twisted , and I don't do twisted, so our views don't coincide. It's not bragging to be proud of yourself. Or am I in the wrong for not liking scat porn? I will assimilate further, my apologies.

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: I will. If you like porn with shit as the focus, that is sick. I'm sorry if you have some right, but that is just sick. I will never find myself enjoying that. If someone does, I reserve the right to be properly disgusted.

I think if you delve into the fetishes of the majority of the public, you'll be surprised how many you consider "sick".

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: Well, let's all be as juvenile as possible. If what atheism needs is more attention, good or bad, than great. I just wonder if pissing people off on purpose is the most constructive thing.

Seriously, I've been over this before. It has nothing to do with being constructive.

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: Trading bibles for porn equates godlessness with something the average believer may find offensive. It's playing into their hand. It's silly and just a stunt to get a rise. I thought yours was a belief structure of rationale and reality? Are these assholes doing it a service?

Let's take a quick reality check. Atheism is already seen by the majority of the public to be immoral and offensive. There's nothing new here. I already told you it was a stunt to get a rise out of people, and it was a success.

My belief structure is mine alone, no one speaks for me. These other atheists aren't acting for atheism. They are acting for their specific organization. This is an important distinction.

(March 10, 2010 at 10:17 pm)Pippy Wrote: I just hate porn, and when I saw this kid do a TV spot (the kid in Boston trading bibles for porn), he was belligerent and petty. So I find the whole thing laughable. Not laugh with, laugh at. Please feel free to think whatever you will, though. Please know that these are just my thoughts, and I am neither right not wrong.

Thanks,
-Pip

You hate porn? Wow. If I may ask, have you had any sexually fulfilling relationships?
Reply
#39
RE: Smut for Smut
Quote:so the religious states pay for their porn, maybe the irreligious states get it for free.


That makes more sense:the others are too stupid to work out how to get what they want for free.:

@Pippy:I "get it' but do not support the stunt. I think it's unsubtle, aggressive and and sophomoric. (fancy,at a a college ) That makes it counter productive and no more than a bravura exhibition of public masturbation.
Reply
#40
RE: Smut for Smut
Quote:It is sensationalist and rude, that was the fucking point. Good job, YOU GOT IT!
Do i get a fish treat?

Quote:I'm sure it gets under your skin, but that was the POINT.
No I am laughing at them. They are not under my skin. If they want to help associate atheism with pornography they can.

Quote:Cry me a river, cupcake. I told you that this was a result of religious proselytizers, and somehow you don't get it. It wasn't meant to pussyfoot around a subject.
See you being disingenuous, holding a mean double standard. religious proselytizers have been mean to you yourself for over 2000 years, so that justifies that you (theoretically) be rude. If the thing that the proselytizers did was wrong, then the thing the atheists did was wrong as well. You can't justify being rude because someone was rude to you. If you do you are a hypocrite.

Quote:And the self-righteous moral high ground makes an appearance. Let's see, how would you deal with proselytizers that impose on your beliefs, social values, and legislation?
Are we going in circles? Not sink to their level. Act with more self respect than that. Belittle me for being self righteous for not supporting 'sinking to their level'.

Quote:I think if you delve into the fetishes of the majority of the public, you'll be surprised how many you consider "sick".
Yes. Most. I consider most straight normal sex sick. But yes. I like how it is a lifestyle choice now. I am not a pederast, it's a lifestyle.

Quote:Seriously, I've been over this before. It has nothing to do with being constructive.
Then what is the point?

Quote:Let's take a quick reality check. Atheism is already seen by the majority of the public to be immoral and offensive. There's nothing new here. I already told you it was a stunt to get a rise out of people, and it was a success.
Not to me. I think atheism is the same as every other belief, an attempt to define reality. You should want more for atheism than publicity stunts. But it's up to you.

Quote:My belief structure is mine alone, no one speaks for me. These other atheists aren't acting for atheism. They are acting for their specific organization. This is an important distinction.
Of course.

Quote:You hate porn? Wow. If I may ask, have you had any sexually fulfilling relationships?
Ummmm. No. Never. Because I hate porn, and all girls like to watch porn all the time, and love porn in the bedroom, I have never been with a girl. I hate porn because it dehumanizes both the actress and the viewer. If I could ask, why does my aversion to porn mean I have never had a relationship? Is an aversion to porn an emotional disorder these days? Does my aversion to porn mean an aversion to sex? Because porn and sex are not the same thing. Porn is a toxic mimic of sex, and falsity.

Thanks.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)