Christians suck; world still turns

[zabu of nΩd]

I think what happened is that people had made up their mind on Ferretallica's debating abilities by his initial comments, and then proceeded to outright ignore his later ones.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I believe his later ones were just as silly-sausage-esque. Regardless I think it's kind of an OK decision to do what you just said; how many people suddenly become randomly rational after spewing stupid bullshit in the very same thread a page earlier.

edit: All of his posts here are dumb

 

[Thoth-Amon]

nice.

 

[Einherjar86]

You and seemingly everyone besides V5 and Dodens misunderstand what freedom from religion means. I said it earlier but apparently everyone ignored me. It means that the government cannot pass laws, arrest people, set tax rates or whatever they do based on religion. This should mean that, to use the running example, it can't discriminate against homosexuals since the only reason to do is because Christianity (and other religions but mainly Christianity in North America) has helped perpetuate bigotry towards them. Dodens also articulated this point very well

Thanks for this. I did get it once Dodens made that post. I think I was understanding it, but I was simply neglecting the right words. I think that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are still closely entwined. Freedom of religion says that you can choose whatever religion you wish to practice. Now, freedom from religion disallows the government from making decisions based on religion; but I think that a primary cause for this is freedom of religion. For instance, if another religion approves of homosexuality, or believes there's nothing wrong with it, then a decision by the government to make homosexuality illegal would be in stark neglect of freedom of religion. So, in this way, the two are extremely similar.

Still, your post really helped clarify what I was (for reasons I can't tell) not understanding.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Freedom from religion = covered by the right to freedom of religion. Right to lack of something is often implicit as part of a right to anything covered by the totality. For instance, the right to free speech. This also covers my right to say nothing at all; it says nothing about "you can't NOT talk," similar to how freedom of religion carries no implication that I MUST practice SOME KIND OF RELIGION.

 

[King Richard]

I said it earlier but apparently everyone ignored me.

I'm shocked...srsly

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

 

[cookiecutter]

Ferretallica wasn't being bullied. His points were so stupid that it was hard to respond to them in a coherent manner. Of course this made him defensive continuing the problem.

Thanks for this. I did get it once Dodens made that post. I think I was understanding it, but I was simply neglecting the right words. I think that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are still closely entwined. Freedom of religion says that you can choose whatever religion you wish to practice. Now, freedom from religion disallows the government from making decisions based on religion; but I think that a primary cause for this is freedom of religion. For instance, if another religion approves of homosexuality, or believes there's nothing wrong with it, then a decision by the government to make homosexuality illegal would be in stark neglect of freedom of religion. So, in this way, the two are extremely similar.

Still, your post really helped clarify what I was (for reasons I can't tell) not understanding.

Cool, sounds like you understand what we mean. This is why we say Freedom of Religion implies Freed from Religion.

I'm shocked...srsly

I'm glad I clicked view post to see this. I was amused by the irony.

 

[King Richard]

Yeah well, stop being a snobby, self-righteous prick and people might actually pay attention to your egotistical posts more often.

edit: Just sayin'

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

it's not his fault you're a moron

 

[King Richard]

You totally blindsided me with that one big guy.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

i don't even know how to respond to you anymore, seriously

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Ferretallica wasn't being bullied. His points were so stupid that it was hard to respond to them in a coherent manner. Of course this made him defensive continuing the problem.

Now that I look back on it, it looks like everything he said was addressed, so I'm not sure why AchrisK was making a big deal about that. But he probably shouldn't have been insulted so much.

 

[King Richard]

i don't even know how to respond to you anymore, seriously

Doesn't surprise me considering all you do is call people morons and faggots.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Tbh, V5 is usually one of the first people to jump on the name-calling boat when someone makes a controversial/dumb post.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

thanks man

 

[zabu of nΩd]

anytime

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

By the way, I know I am and I realize I should probably stop.

edit: lots of I's there

 

[Matt]

Usually the insults are deserved tbh

 

[zabu of nΩd]

By the way, I know I am and I realize I should probably stop.

edit: lots of I's there

OK

Usually the insults are deserved tbh

When it gets to the point that someone makes a semi-legitimate post (like Ferretallica's last one itt) and the reply is "you're fucking dumb, go away", that's taking it a little too far.

Not that it's just V5 - it's something a lot of people on the forum (myself included) could improve on.