Incidentally, it also gets rather tiresome seeing the ever popular "anus-clones/drones/automatons/minions" smear utilized to such an intelligent extent as seen in the forthcoming quote:
This is not necessarily directed at you but that comment made me think of something. Why the hell do anus drones think there's some intrinsic connection between anti-racism or anything that espouses anti-racist ideas and "liberal judeo-christian" values? First of all, the two are logically independent. One can hold moral views concurrent with but not derived from "liberal judeo-christian" ideology. The support for anti-racist views doesn't have to be justified by appeal to explicitly judeo-christian ideas. Lo and behold, the justification can come from somewhere drastically different. But the anus drones might counter by claiming that since judeo-christian values are bad, anything that resembles them is as well, regardless of the fact that they might have been derived from reasons independent of judeo-christian values. Well what the fuck is so bad I wonder. It seems like these people make either of two moves or sometimes both. 1) They cite some dubious connection between the adoption of judeo-christian values and practical disadvantages to society or 2) They commit a blatant fallacy by using their worldview to justify their conclusions. I'm seriously tired of this dogshit.
You make some valid points, but they're lost underneath the wave of ad homs and dubious claims made of an entire group of different people with differing levels of intellect. You may not realize it, but you're guilty of exactly what you are condemning in the last few lines of your post.
Sure, anus drones may counter with whatever spurious argument it was you made mention of above, but it's pretty easy to see through that kind of unthinking rhetoric, now isn't it? However, it seems to provide you with an easy out in claiming that
all thought related to the "ANUS worldview" (whatever the fuck that's supposed to be) is necessarily correlative to the lower-rung, idiotically dogmatic personifications which arise occasionally in argument. Do you always generalize this much when you fight your battles, or write your school papers? Is it easier to deflate the ideology by attacking the morons who unthinkingly bleat out "ANUS-esque" platitudes, which sound great but signify nothing but the lack of intelligence of the person doing the bleating?
The "Judeo-Christian" argument can be applied in several different ways to several different contexts (by this, I mean that liberal, Christian, or Jewish ideology can be destructive in some situations, beneficial in others, even in the modern day we live in and decry), such that, it becomes relatively easy to spot the empty-headed demagogues who proselytize against anything which looks, smells, and acts like a Jew/antiracist/Christian/liberal/etc.
Your arguments are rather penny-ante and stale; you're just as unable to divorce the ideas from the representatives as you seem to think that "anus drones" are unable to think in anything other than absolutized condemnation of anything remotely bearing a stamp of Christianity. If you want a platform to stand on, trying asking someone who isn't a Pez-dispenser of pre-formatted dogmatisms about their ideas before you lash out with your pre-formatted tantrums against ideologies which you personally disagree with.
Context has much more to do with any claim than your precious all-encompassing logic does. Logic is only good for winning arguments, not for living in the real world, which has differnet rules.
