the difference between ‘thought control’ and ‘being considerate’
That is the cultural struggle we are having in the US right now. There are some who wish to exchange freedom for political correctness, who believe in patrolling and regulating not only speech, but thought and ideas too. (Insanitybytes22)
If you are an extremist in any aspect of your beliefs, and you are not in the majority within your society, you are probably a vigorous advocate of free speech. Extremism is a form of tribalism that paints anyone who doesn’t hold the same views as you as Evil. When other people are Evil, we have to remove them at all costs.
- extremist Christians see the Evil in family planning clinics, places that seek to destroy their god’s plan to further over-populate this planet
- extremist atheists see the Evil in all religious organisations, places that seek to indoctrinate children with dangerous and harmful beliefs rooted in ignorant superstitions
- extremist feminists see the Evil in all society, ignorant people programmed to behave a certain way to the total detriment of one gender.
I don’t fully disagree with all of these stances, but I do think there are other ways to express these opinions without heaping disdain, hatred and anger on everyone and anyone who doesn’t agree. And this is where ‘extremists’ rush headlong into a tangle with challenges to their ‘freedom of expression’.
The reason that extremists all become uncomfortable, defensive and furious in the face of calls to modify their language is that their beliefs are seeped in hatred, disgust and sheer exaggeration. And they want society to hear the full force of their views, without consideration for any other point of view or experience within the area they designate as Evil.
This is what their version of ‘freedom of speech’ is: showing no interest or consideration for the experiences of any individuals who don’t fit in their simplified view of right and wrong. ‘Freedom of speech’ is freedom to ignore and insult any overlapping area concern in pursuit of the extremist utopia.
The problem with extremists and their concern for freedom of speech, is that when they are no longer a minority voice, but the ruling group, I suspect that their concern for freedom of speech, becomes concern for ensuring that the Wrong Opinions don’t take hold again. Let’s look at few examples where freedom of speech has been, and still is, viciously trampled on, in the name of enforcing Correct Belief.
- Communist USSR: “The anti-religious campaign of the Khrushchev era began in 1959,… carried out by mass closures of churches, monasteries, and convents, as well as of the still-existing seminaries … The campaign also included a restriction of parental rights for teaching religion to their children, a ban on the presence of children at church services …The state carried out forced retirement, arrests and prison sentences to clergymen who criticized atheism or the anti-religious campaign, who conducted Christian charity or who in made religion popular by personal example.” (wikipedia)
- In the USA, atheists aren’t legally free to hold public office or to speak in some courts of law: “Eight state constitutions include restrictions on people who don’t believe in a supreme being. In Arkansas, denying the existence of God means you can’t hold civil office or testify in court” (Washington Post)
- 13 Muslim countries currently issue death sentences to atheists (Reuters)
When I ask extremist Christians to stop calling family planning clinics places of murder or genocide, or when I ask extremist atheists to stop suggesting that Christians shouldn’t be allowed near children, or when I ask extremist feminists to stop demanding that trans women shouldn’t be allowed to access female toilets, I’m asking them to consider life in a less exaggerated manner and to take the experiences of the group of people they are vilifying into consideration.
Let’s walk a mile in the shoes of other people before we attempt to marginalise them or discriminate against others in pursuit of our own priority ideology. How we present our ideas and how we use language, can and does influence the pressure on minority groups, on individuals who face hate, discrimination and violence in their everyday lives. This is not about attempted thought control, it’s about showing respect for other human beings with different life experiences. Simply put, it’s about being considerate.
When being considerate becomes a legal institution, it is thought control.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When individuals asking others to be considerate is called ‘thought control’, it’s exaggeration beyond belief. And why does no-one touting this line ever acknowledge the importance of being considerate?
LikeLike
Being considerate is important, and there is nothing wrong with asking someone to be considerate. But when it gets written into legislature, it is thought control. Between individuals it is not thought control, but when the government takes a part, it is.
LikeLike
Sadly, what you are missing is that the extremeist (atheists in this context) has had t endure millenia of state sanctioned god belief where dissent was brutally put down.
The secular democracies recognisre the right of the individual to beleive what they want providing it doesnlt hurt or infringe on others.
Of course, the lines gets blurred regarding indoctrination of kids. And ore so when we are talking about children from fundamentalist parents, or even Jehovah’s witnesses.
Because you are reasonable you think everyone else is. Ha! You wish!
Read any convert from a fundamentalist background and you are lifting the lid on Pandora’s Box.
You might as well try to ask Asian Ivory traders to please not shoot any more Rhino as we have genuine medicine to make you willy hard these days.
Such an approach is working a treat right? Yeah …Riiiight.
Sometimes there is nothing for it but to put down a rabid dog.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Glad you took some of that to heart, and I look forward to seeing all your future comments oozing thoughtful consideration. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, you know me …. if it walks like a duck etc…
And I will always call a spade a spade, even if it is a shovel.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That you do, Ark!! 😀 And I thank you for it, even when we don’t agree. Though, more considerate individuals who would like the state to control people’s opinions, might not.
LikeLike
Is it being an extremist to ask that teaching of religion, if it must be taught, be restricted to a time when the recipient can at least reason whether the ideas presented to them are reasonable or not
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is not extremist. However, the religion-in-schools debate is a half-dark horse of which we can only see the left rear quarter. For all we know it might not be a horse but something else.
LikeLike
What about asking parents to bring up their children free of religion until the age when they can legally drive? Or buy cigarettes, which is set 18 in my country?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In principle a good idea. I do feel that they need to know about all the various religions, their specific dogmas and their histories (very important!). Religious studies should be exactly that – the study of religion, not of one specific religion. The purpose of that should be to educate a young person objectively about religion, its psychology and the effects thereof on society. I believe this is very important exactly because religions are dogmatic and capable of much damage.
In practice sadly the world is not that advanced – we were nearly there, with our freedom of religion, but we’re reverting to medieval times. In practice the biggest bully wins at this point, and I’m afraid nobody likes bullies.
The Christian principle (harm nobody, be good to people, be fair-minded, monitor yourself & your own thought processes and avoid doing or thinking evil, don’t steal or murder, etc) is really a very universal principle and ought to be taught in schools under another label, as various religions have it in common (e.g. Taoism, Buddhism and even Paganism subscribe to this same principle and I’m quite sure atheists don’t teach their children the opposite!). It would also be a great idea to teach children some form of meditation (or prayer if you like), and the value of having certain rituals (such as the lighting of candles 4 Sundays before Christmas, for argument’s sakes), the psycho-social meaning of rituals, the psychological value (and health value) of being able to meditate or pray. There are immense recorded health and psychological benefits to these two practices. One’s core belief then ought to be the parent’s prerogative to introduce a child to. Christian parents should of course have the prerogative to raise Christian children, etc; however once a person is an adult, they need to have enough information and knowledge to be able to make that decision themselves whether they would want to abide by their childhood religion or leave it.
In this Utopian system, the various religions would have to work a hell of a lot harder to actually recruit their young people. Fearmongering would not do it anymore; enlightenment would be a beautiful lure as young and older people do have an inborn craving for meaning (this has been established by observational ethological studies). If a person wants to believe there is nothing except what can be proven by today’s physical science, let them believe this; however, if someone wishes to connect to some higher form of energy (deity, universal spirit, whatever), they too should be allowed to follow this belief without fear of ridicule. By definition atheism and deism can never be in agreement and each will always feel the other is “wrong”; so you’ll never have a situation where the arguments stop, nor would one want this situation as perfect agreement kills investigative science. But at least the bombs would stop flying.
My two-penneth, thoughts are cheaper in SA as our exchange rate is so laughable. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for such a well thought out answer. If your exchange rate is laughable, I don’t know what to say about ours.
In my view, religious studies, should, in a Utopian world, be taught as an elective in a cultural anthropology class in a university. Most people will disagree, but I don’t see how study of superstition is any way useful to a child. Whether you teach them about all religions or just two.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason I believe they need to be taught this is because they will be confronted with it before they are even 18. Then they need to have the background to stand firm, instead of being swept up into delirious ecstasy. In homeschool one of the things I taught my kids was how to spot magical thinking, and how to question such thinking. It is the same reason (to be prepared) that children are being bombarded with lessons about what drugs do to you.
In a truly Utopian world people wouldn’t target kids for spreading their personal brand of madness (religion).
LikeLike
I think I agree with you.
In other news, I think I need help with that ( teaching a child how to spot woo). We can have a chat on how to do this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can do.
LikeLike
I will be more than grateful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Is it being an extremist to ask that teaching of religion, if it must be taught, be restricted to a time when the recipient can at least reason whether the ideas presented to them are reasonable or not”
Hmm, I think it is extremism, at this point in time anyway. We’re all indoctrinated by our parents, by our schools, by society around us, into a million harmful ways of living – eating sentient animals (should we wait till kids are old enough to make that decision? in principle, of course!), destroying our bodies with over-consumption and nasty chemicals, believing Syrian civilian casualties are faceless collateral damage …
Most of us have been indoctrinated by religion and got over it, we have to assume that anyone else who wants to will find a way out as an adult. At least the internet has arrived!
LikeLike
Would you consider Jean Jacques Rousseau an extremist? He may not have been a good father to his children, but in his book, Emile or the education of children, he says almost the same thing I am asking. He writes his student will not be burdened with such useless lessons such as superstition or religion if you will.
I don’t see how it would be indoctrination or extremism in a parent if they avoided animal foods in their house.
I think I have been very clear on my opposition to war, to bombing of Syria, Somali by the KDF or anywhere else for that matter.
Yes, most people were indoctrinated in some religion or another and eventually left. Why must everyone go through the same experience?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree on an individual level, but there would be no fair way to roll out that kind of thinking across society. Parents ‘indoctrinate’ children with opinions and prejudices no matter what they do – life is a minefield!
LikeLike
Am I to understand your statement to mean all forms of opinion is indoctrination? Did I misunderstand you?
Life, I agree, is a minefield.
I also admit readily that what I propose would not be possible now, and maybe even in a future world
LikeLike
How many ‘extremist feminists’ have you discusses trans women’s access to toilets as a matter of interest? I’ll be honest, it’s not the sort of subject that crops up everyday.
LikeLike
Didn’t you know that bathroom stall use is becoming a major feminist issue? I’m just not sure where it stands between sexual assault and equal pay. I heard Gloria Steinem is planning to drop everything and dedicate the rest of her life to the bathroom cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s the trouble with living in such a sheltered place, I miss out on all the big news. I remember the first time I went to Paris and there was one toilet. For men! And Women! To both use! Bathroom? So American darling. There’s hardly a bath in there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 But getting back to the point, what this post is actually promoting is simply a variation on blasphemy laws. Of course that ignores the fact that without offence there’s no such thing as a free and plural society. Mary Whitehouse was congenitally and chronically offended. The second society starts limiting rights to cater to people who can’t have their worldview questioned because they’ll be all butthurt and sulky for the rest of their lives- we’re finished.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How many ‘extremist feminists’ have you discusses trans women’s access to toilets as a matter of interest?”
I’ve been following Clare for three years now. It came up before. Although I would have referred to it in the same manner if I’d first seen it on your post.
LikeLike
I will be very honest, I discuss toilet issues but mainly to advocate for unisex toilets and to educate men, mostly men, to learn better toilet manners i.e learning to make proper target practice
LikeLike
The problem with extremists and their concern for freedom of speech, is that when they are no longer a minority voice, but the ruling group, I suspect that their concern for freedom of speech, becomes concern for ensuring that the Wrong Opinions don’t take hold again.
Bingo.
As for Insanity, she’s just an extremist with a persecution complex. All young earth creationist evangelicals are. Look at that Davis woman. Was that exercising “free speech”? No, it was breaking laws, period, but that’s not how the evangelicals saw it. A huge part of their narrative is persecution, but what they’re really saying is this: “I’m angry I can’t impose my nonsense on you!”
Well Christians, for 800 years, you did have that power… and we call that period the Dark Ages.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My point was that we’re all guilty of extremism. I’ve certainly fallen into the hole where many of you still reside, in complete horror at all religion. And from that hole, if people like us came to power, we would ensure that human society never made such silly mistakes again. Right? It’s a self-checking gift I’m giving. 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t care one bit about what people want to believe. I do care when they try to influence our secular society with their nonsense, and the demands a rational rebuttal.
Take a look at this and tell me this is “normal”
Or what about this nutter?
LikeLike
John, in regard to that second article, what I notice is that many zealots focus on the law, the Constitution, even the Magna Carta, but they only do so selectively where it suits them. They have a very particular interpretation of the law that suits their agenda, not unlike their interpretation of religion I imagine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely. David, a theologian who has banned me from commenting, wrote a post some time ago which i love. It spells out in some detail how Christians are bound by the laws of the OT. Now, David did this post because he wanted to justify Christians owning guns. Great! Ever since I’ve been pointing Christians to his post when they try and argue they’re free from those laws. Seems David is thoroughly frustrated with this, so this week he wrote a post trying to backtrack, saying some laws apply, but others don’t. Made me giggle, and roll my eyes.
LikeLike
When I was studying theology my first essay was addressing the matter of how to understand the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:18, that not one iota of the law would pass away, with the obvious Christian approach of ignoring large swathes of the OT law.
The standard Christian apologetic, which I duly adopted, was that there were three aspects of the OT law, the sacrificial law which was completed by the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, the moral law which continued to apply and the law which related to Israel as a theocracy (a country under God) which no longer applied as God was no longer dealing with one country among the heathen, but the whole world.
So that is the standard way that Christians seek to deal with the underlying tension between OT and NT.
LikeLike
Clever, although not supported by anything Jesus said.
LikeLike
Regarding #1: No – we should not counter violence with violence, we should hold nice and still while they shoot us down. Be good citizens. We’ll get a beautiful wake and that will compensate us.
Honestly.
Actually there was just that scenario a few years back in Cape Town: A group of thugs burst into a church and opened fire (I’m convinced their AK47s were all legally bought and fully licensed, right? Gun laws would prevent criminals from carrying guns. You prize yourself on logic). One churchgoer (only one) drew a handgun (only a handgun), fired one shot at the attackers (only one), and they fled in horror. Nobody died that day.
Had he not had a handgun, there would have been a ton of “casualties”. But South African lives are cheap. It would not even have made international news.
So this clown can ridicule all he likes. He remains a fool.
LikeLike
With all due respect, Gip, but BS
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t looked at the video (no time) but gipsika’s story is making me think of the guy with a knife in the Tube in London yesterday. Got tasered, no-one killed, would have been so much more dramatic if the police were armed. And yet, I think the fact that the police weren’t armed will be flagged as a risk. I think with the terror threat guns will be more commonplace on police here, it’s been so long since Jean Charles de Menezes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s 2 minutes
LikeLike
Yes, I just ‘liked’ it. Really interesting.
LikeLike
Perhaps the situation is different in the States. Maybe the average American is cuckoos and will randomly take his gun (and I guess they all own assault rifles) and go into a school or church or mall and start shooting. Perhaps it’s a national sport in the US, in which case the country not only needs all guns destroyed but also all of its population monitored constantly for insane episodes. Perhaps the whole of US ought to be in padded cells.
But here in SA it is mainly the criminals and thugs who open fire, and if you don’t shoot back, they kill you dead. Because life is cheap here, and your cellphone is worth murdering you for. Ironically they are bloody cowards too, when the non-criminal gun-owning crime victim actually shoots back they run like rabbits. And we aim to miss because the police has made it very clear to us what happens to us if we shoot down a criminal or even just injure him. Go figure. You don’t believe me? I invite you to come and live here for a year.
LikeLike
VW, that sounds like a real peaceful incident as compared to what happens here.
LikeLike
(totally skim reading, maybe not relevant) 🙂
LikeLike
BS, just because you weren’t there personally? The incident I speak about was in the Cape. Not in Australia or US.
Here is another: While I was waiting for a foot op in 2010, in the outpatients of our local hospital, they brought in a man on a stretcher. It was just blood wherever you looked. Half an hour later he was out, survived, pure luck… he told us his story:
This man (a white guy with a respectable beer boep) had been braaing (barbequeing) with his family when four thugs jumped over the wall with guns and tried to pull off an armed robbery. He could only think of his wife and his little son, so he lunged for one of them who had a gun and wrestled him for the gun. He got himself shot in the stomach and in the hand, but he also managed to get the gun, and shoot one of the four, injure another, and the remaining two fled.
If this man had not known how to handle a gun (as you don’t when you are afraid to own one), he, his wife and his child would most probably have joined the countless statistics of our daily house murders by armed robbers. If he’d had his own gun on him he might not have been injured in the first place. But again, he and his family survived because he knew how to shoot back. Will you call me a liar on this one too? With all due respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not calling you a liar… Just saying your narrative is factually erroneous as there are clear real world, country-wide examples that show severe gun restrictions work spectacularly.
LikeLike
My narrative is factually correct. It is what you’d call an “anecdote”; it actually happened. It is not an invented story to illustrate a point, it was in the news.
Besides as I said, in this country it’s the outlaws who start the shootings, and if you want to be a pacifist, you are simply gunned down by them. Gun laws don’t touch them; their guns are owned illegally anyway, stolen (sometimes “organized” from the police!), or smuggled in. Tightening gun laws would just make their game easier for them as fewer victims would be able to defend themselves.
LikeLike
… re Australia, I also presume they have a fully functional police force. Unlike SA. So I’d guess the overall crime rate there is lower.
LikeLike
I didn’t say your story was incorrect, I said the narrative you are trying to present is factually erroneous, which it is.
LikeLike
I guess it depends which country you find yourself in. If the police force is doing a good job and laws are enforced and criminals put away, super. But if the police are prohibited from harming a criminal, even a known hijacker rapist or murderer like here in SA, foisting severe gun restrictions on the already highly at-risk civil population (I mean now, the normal honest people, not the criminal class) just puts them at further risk.
It is already happening.
Your gun-free model works in a country with a functional legal system. It will not sort out the crime and violence problems of the 3rd world.
That our “protesters” don’t need guns in order to be violent, they demonstrate regularly by setting fire to things. Are you going to try banning cigarette lighters too, and gasoline?
LikeLiked by 1 person
So guns, yes or no?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, you live in Obs. Got to work it out for yourself. They held my grandfather, over 80 years old, at gunpoint not once but on several occasions while looting his home.
LikeLike
This is where it gets tricky.
And the hard questions have to asked.
One name.
Oscar Pistorious.
LikeLike
O J Simpson. Jack the Ripper. Every country has its murderers. Guns do not turn normal people into murderers. Murderers use guns to assault; normal people use guns to defend. Taking the defence away from the normal people renders them helpless to the murderers. If Reeva had had a handgun on her and shot back, she might have been the survivor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If there were no guns she would have had an even better chance.
LikeLike
Against him, yes.
1 Oscar Pistorius case, almost 3 years back. How many common house murders and robberies in the interim? Per night? Is it 180 000? I think I’ll take my chances with Oscar.
LikeLike
Arming the populace simply means more guns.
Yes, you will still get criminals, but that is as much a social problem based on haves and have nots.
More guns will not solve the problem only exacerbate it.
And having a gun is no guarantee you will be in a position to use it in during a robbery, especially if it is late at night and there are several assailants.
You are entitled to your belief, but it seems that you are buy into the fear aspect.
And yes, I have had several intrusion on the property before you say …
”Wait til …
Violence begets violence and those who are not normally of a violent disposition will have limited chances against an armed criminal who has surprised them and many cases suggest having firearms merely increases the risk of dying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What you said there is true and entirely paints the situation here. The person who is not used to shooting down people is at a disadvantage against the hardened killer. Then again, as my hospital story illustrates, it’s also about what each man has to lose. The family dad had his wife and child to lose; the burglars, only this one “gig”. People show amazing bravery in such a situation.
It is however not about haves and have-nots. It’s not the have-nots breaking onto your house but the professional burglars. They are practiced and efficient; they steal your stuff and sell it, a.s.a.p; in fact very often they are millionaires, simply counting in rand, because they do not pay for what they sell. If someone holds you up in your car at gunpoint you can be pretty sure it’s not his first time. These are not the have-nots and they’re not looting you because you’re a “have”. They are looting you because they see every private house as part of their free supply chain, and you’re just the annoying obstacle in the way.
Their most common response to hearing a warning shot is to run like hell. They don’t feel the contents of your house are worth losing life and limb over. So if you have done your target practice and your psychological prep, you may prevent your children and wife from being raped etc.
LikeLike
We will have to disagree.
It is a no win situation as this approach only leaves room for more guns, more killers.
Violence begets violence. That ls all I will say. And you are buying into the fear.
LikeLike
Whatever.
LikeLike
Please consider the Australian decision to ban guns after the worst mass shooting ( to date) in modern history.
LikeLike
Mass shootings are not SA’s trouble. Unchecked violent crime is.
LikeLike
And arming civilians will do what exactly?
I imagine every Farmer is arms and does it help? No.
So therefore if you ban firearms or at the very least institute much tighter controls then this can only be a good thing surely?
You solution only puts society on a head on collision and simply swells the bank balances of the arms manufacturers.
So how exactly is more guns going to help this situation?
LikeLike
There is a post you did, a good while back. On 60 000 deaths per year. Could you link pls?
LikeLike
I deleted all my blog posts before this current reboot.
I did write a humorous In the Pub version of the SA crime Stats. but don’t recall ever doing a serious one.
LikeLike
That video is classic! I might have to give it a post of its own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The way the argument is formulated in the post is: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal.
The problem, however, goes beyond the superficial false equivalence. The primordial misunderstanding relates to the positive/negative characteristics of the ideologies in question. Pro ideologies operate as to commeasure the rights of citizens and afford/guarantee those rights based on citizenship alone; on the other hand there are negativist ideologies which do the opposite.
In essence it’s the difference between legalizations and prohibitions. Legalizations allow each individual to choose their own path. Prohibitions on the other hand force everyone to behave in exactly the same way, and in that sense they’re totalitarian.
Being considerate or not is, as it should be, a personal and individual choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your interpretation of the formulation of the argument. It goes if a, b and c all think that group x (variable) is Evil, then they all have something in common. In their hate-filled struggle to prove group x is Evil, they are afraid of anyone asking them to modify their language in any context, and confuse such requests for courtesy with censorship. And yet, ironically, these passionately furious people if they got into power, would be the most likely to apply genuine censorship in their obsession with keeping group x (Evil) at bay. Hope that’s a bit clearer for you.
LikeLike
Mathematics isn’t “interpretation”. And logic is mathematics. The result is precise and verifiable. Any other person who can do mathematics can check the results. It’s not about some sort of mystical and arbitrary belief system.
The error you make once again is that a commonality is not an equivalency. Hitler was a vegetarian, Gandhi was a vegetarian, and Roughseas is a vegetarian; they all have vegetarianism in common, but that commonality doesn’t imply they have any other characteristics in common.
You don’t provide any evidence for your equivalencies- at least not solid evidence as there is no known feminist movement aiming at banning transexuals from using female loos. That’s a red herring used solely to bolster a shaky argument.
Your other mistake is to presume a power game, which means you don’t understand the difference between pro versus negativist ideologies. A pro ideology rests on the notion that rights be equal and for that to be possible protections of rights (for all) have to be codified. That’s what happened during the enlightenment which led to the liberties enjoyed by most in western civilization today. The American bill of rights, the French Droits de l’homme, the Spanish constitution, all of the authors of these documents understood that offence is a necessary part of a free and plural society. Hope that’s a little bit clearer for you 😉
LikeLike
Perhaps maths and logic aren’t your strong point Pink, but it’s nice to see you having a go.
“The error you make once again is that a commonality is not an equivalency.” Did I say they are the same? All clearly different areas, yet all clearly extreme in their opinions. You can say you don’t agree they are extreme (evidence please, or a new definition of ‘extreme’).
“at least not solid evidence as there is no known feminist movement aiming at banning transexuals from using female loos” Not my problem if you’ve not come across it before, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Read Roughseas or Clare more consistently, or google it yourself, here’s one small example to get you started:
“In the US, the radical feminist group Gender Identity Watch, which claims to be “devoted to tracking legislation and case law that attempts to codify ‘gender identity’ into law and to override protections based on sex”, allegedly worked with the right-wing anti-gay group Pacific Justice Institute to prevent a Colorado teenager from being able to use a female toilet.”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/transgender-rights-versus-feminism-what-makes-woman-1501487
But seriously Pink, if you don’t like the way I formulate my posts, go read something you think is well structure and reading, or, better still, write something interesting yourself and host your own discussion. I like it when you contribute to the general discussion (e.g. in this case – is being considerate really censorship?) but trying to give me ‘lessons’ in your understanding of logic is frankly tedious.
LikeLike
My dear, you’ve got to be kidding me. So one small group does something and suddenly that’s part of feminist ideology? That’s as outrageous as saying all Muslims are terrorists. And do you think Gender Identity Watch is really a feminist group? Do you think any of the ideas they propose are in line with feminist ideology?
LikeLike
I don’t think there is any such thing as generic feminist ideology, beyond the simple statement that women and men should be treated equally. Everything else is up for grabs. But yes, there is a significantly sized sub-group within a group that labels themselves as True Feminists (or something similar) who believe that trans women should be marginalised from anything that applies to women. And that includes toilets. It’s been a huge discussion in the UK at some point (relatively).
LikeLike
The problem is nobody ever sees themselves as the extremist and people on the internet, generally speaking, would rather project their own stereotypes and assumptions on others than truly get to understand where the other person is coming from in most conversations, which leads to everyone hiding in their tiny little worldview bubbles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ISIS, is part of Islam.
Sharia Law is part of Islam.
I think I am at least intelligent enough to have
a) done a little research and …
b) It doesn’t take rocket science to recognise that when we are continually told Islam is a religion of peace while all around Islamic Extremists are killing people, chopping off heads and blowing shit up and even moderates still believe Mohammed when to heaven on a winged horse and that he wasn’t really a pedophile, that something is not quite right.
And the same goes for any fundamental religious practice.
T-Rex and Allosaurus were not vegesaurs and did not live with people; the world was not flooded and a god-man was not crucified and neither did he come back to life.
Neither is there a never ending supply of virgins waiting for me in Heaven if only I would blow up the White House.
And while normal people won’t countenance this utter merde, some will.
Simply because you will find whatever you want to find in books inspired by God. Because God is so cool.
God is the Man!
I am an atheist, but I am not extremist.
People can believe whatever they like. I will simply tell them: ”Don’t come and spread your manure on my garden without expecting me not to fling shit back at you, thank you very much”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and for the record, CR, the Bible is not great literature, but Alice in Wonderland could very well be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I assume you’re referencing my post: Is the Bible a literary masterpiece? You can disagree with me if you like, but it would be nice if you answered why you believe the Bible is not great literature.
LikeLike
There are several reasons but not least because it purports to be true and promotes violence and yet is largely fraudulent and erroneous.
People have waxed lyrical about the Song of Solomon etc.
Why?
And Proverbs? Plenty of equally as good wisdom literature elsewhere.
There are more reasons but it is such a tedious exercise to continually point out that the books of the bible are largely vulgar diatribe.
But if you truly feel they are great literature then this is your choice.
It is, after all, a ”Best Seller” is it not?But then, so is Harry Potter.
LikeLike
Er … word press or me going haywire. Sorry V. That comment was typed in another box …
LikeLike
You’ll notice my post isn’t merely an assertion of “it’s good because I said so.” Rather I give the following reasons:
1) Influential on society, other literature, and art.
2) Memorable stories
3) Beautiful writing and figurative language
4) Capable of being interpreted in multiple ways and thus has depth.
I unpack all those points with supporting examples and reasoning in the post.
I understand your reasons, but I tend to see them as unrelated to literary quality of the text themselves. That it does or doesn’t promote violent has little to do with whether the writing is good or the story memorable, etc.
To your Proverbs point, Shakespeare is sometimes said to be the greatest poet in English, does that mean he is the only poet worth reading?
LikeLike
Again, your assertions are based largely on the fact the bible is promoted as the ”Inspired word of God”
Where’s my barf bag?
That is why my reasons for disputing your assertion are valid, as if this were simply a collection of stories it would be regarded as having little literary merit.
1)Influential because it was pushed as divinely inspired. Several billion people being told they are worthless sinners.
Good one! So fear then?
2).Memorable for the same reason. Who read the bible for fun?
Most Christians do not,/have not ( certainly not cover to cover) and are largely only aware of the stories because they were pushed. One could use the same arguments for the Koran and millions of Muslims would cite the same reasons as you do for the bible and the Koran is simply a piece of shit.Maybe the bible scores a few more points but not that many.
3)Beautiful wring? Well, that is subjective.
You want violence and war? Sven Hassel is pretty good.
Sex? Well the current flavour is 50 shades.
Fantasy :Lord of the Rings. Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.
4) Interpretation? Yes, there is this of course, and this is why several million farking idiots are abusing kids, wanting to teach Creationism, and telling the rest of us we will be spending eternity burning in Hell.
Great literature?
Methinks you are merely parroting the delusional critics who probably haven’t read it in its entirety either.
You are not a Christian I hope?
At least tell me you are not punting this bias?
By the way, have you read it? Read it all of it?
LikeLike
I have read the Bible in its entirety. My claims are actually based on consistency of approach, careful reading, good background knowledge of literature in general, and understanding the bible as a literary work (not as the “inspired word of God”)
Since we have no way of actually doing alternative history by changing history or entering an alternative universe we simply don’t know how the bible would’ve been regarded as a literary work had it not been central to the religious culture. Every suggestion otherwise is mere speculation.
We do, however, have some examples such as the resurgence of Egyptian mythology and that we still read Homer and Ovid today that suggest it is reasonable to believe we might still be reading it.
Your reasoning is very similar to the postmodernist argument of literary critic Terry Eagleton, except he applies it to Shakespeare. We only value Shakespeare or any Western White Male Great Writer because it has been artificially thrust upon us by the literary establishment. I think this reasoning is dubious. We continue to read Shakespeare and other great writers because their ideas and their writing (the uniqueness of their particular voices and vision) speaks to us. And who said anything about the Koran being bad literature?
I imagine people interested in literature read the Bible “for fun.” Or at least out of interest.
Do you find 50 Shades to be good writing?
LikeLike
I have not read fifty shades.
Not my tasse de te.
Consistency of approach? Define.
Are you a Christian?
LikeLike
I’m Jewish.
If you read my post carefully (the one on my blog) you’ll notice a reoccurring point I make is it makes no sense to praise a work for its ability to be interpreted in numerous ways (Shakespeare, Melville, and tons of other literary masters) and call that depth and then apply a different standard to the Bible. You know, consistency.
It is not any more violent or horrible than much of Greek Literature. Since I wouldn’t reject the Ancient works of Greek Literature on those grounds, I don’t believe it would be fair to reject the Bible on those grounds either. Thus consistency.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent! Now there is a margin of context.
When you say, the bible are you referring to both Old and New?
LikeLike
Yes, because I am talking about it as a work of literature and not primarily as a work of faith. So I suppose I should add that when I say I’ve read the entire Bible I mean the New Testament too.
LikeLike
That it has had influence on civilization at large is not in dispute. That you see this as a reason to consider it great literature is in dispute.
Since from around the time of Constantine it began exerting its influence.
It has largely been distributed free and still is.
Regarded as the Word of God it is already elevated in status creating a false impression, by those who, as I mentioned mostly do not read it.
As a work of classic literature it is most certainly classic.
If it had been regarded no higher in status than other books it would
never have gained the popularity it has, and simply because it is regarded as Divinely Inspired it continues to enjoy this (false) respect.
The Beatles had a profound influence on music and culture but they were not great musicians and their music was not ”great” either.
So you can say the bible has been one of the more/most influential books and I have explained why this is, but this does not make it great literature.
LikeLike
Ah, but I didn’t just say it was influential. I also said it had quality writing and depth of theme and memorable stories with examples provided in the OP. All aesthetic considerations. So mischaracterizing my argument actually.
LikeLike
I didn’t say you said it was ‘just influential” either.’
”Quality Writing”. I consider this subjective.
The stories are memorable because they have been institutionalized.
This still does not make it great literature .
LikeLike
I tend to see quality of writing as partially subjective. And as I already pointed out institutionalization arguments have problems in they can be ubiquitously applied and if it were memorable as stories for their own sake there is no real way to separate it from its institutionalized context.
LikeLike
”Partially subjective”. Well, we make a little progress. One can not ask for more.
LikeLike
Oh brother. Even the greatest of fools admits the quality of the writing in the scriptures. Scour the internet and read the words of princes and paupers who believe not a word of it, but bow down to the genius of style, grammar, and substance..Spirituality aside, it is THE greatest work of collected words put together on earth.
Add the spiritual component of the 66 books, and you have THE monarch of books. Are you saying that you cannot even rise to the level of a fool……..
LikeLike
@Colorstorm
Are you saying that you cannot even rise to the level of a fool……..
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise:
LikeLike
In being mindful of ‘considerate’ in the spirit of this post, as I said, it is THE book of books. Tkx for agreeing.
Others can judge as to foolery; keeping in mind the lame charge of the scriptures having literary deficiencies.
–I rest your honor.–
LikeLike
I have never agreed with anything you have ever written.
LikeLike
Let me add; if it were not for the fact of it’s divinely held status there is nothing to suggest it would ever have been read at all much past the 1st century and would likely have been regarded in a similar vein as other mythical writings.
What are your personal thoughts in the Qua’ran as a literary work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What was a typo? I see you have deleted a the word country, for what reason?
LikeLike
“it would be nice if you answered why you believe the Bible is not great literature.”
I haven’t read your post yet, but I think the fact that some of the people can’t admit there’s a good story or two in there, and some generally interesting reading in terms of history, philosophy or morality, shows how blinkered they are in their pursuit of their designated Evil. Even the simple fact that it has endured and has influenced so much of human history makes it a masterpiece.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It has endured because of the fact it has been promoted as the Divinely inspired word of Yahweh.
As I stated to Console R this does not make great literature.
And one or two stories that may have literary merit within such a large body of work that is erroneous, vile and violent – and yes, frakking boring in places still does not make it great literature.
LikeLike
Taken to its logical conclusion, Ark’s relativistic assertion essentially means the bible is not great or bad literature. It is great literature to me and terrible literature to him. Everyone with their little world-view blinders over their head, living in their nice tiny protected perspectives. Pretty much where my original post started.
What makes it great literature is the quality of the writing and the memorable stories.
“How deserted lies the city,
once so full of people!
How like a widow is she,
who once was great among the nations!
She who was queen among the provinces
has now become a slave.
Bitterly she weeps at night,
tears are on her cheeks.
Among all her lovers
there is no one to comfort her.
All her friends have betrayed her;
they have become her enemies.” – Lamentations 1
This is poetry that can hold its own with quite a few of the first-rate poets in English. It opens with powerful imagery, strong metaphorical language, etc. The emotion is palpable. The narrative is addressing the sadness over the destruction of the nation and the style is perfect match to the tone and atmosphere it is trying to convey. You know, exactly the qualities we expect of good writing.
Now let’s contrast this with:
“Renowned curator Jacques Sauniere staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum’s Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see, a Caravaggio. Grabbing the gilded frame, the seventy-six-year-old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself until it tore from the wall and Sauniere collapsed backward in a heap beneath the canvas.” – Opening of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
This is bad writing. The narrative can’t seem to decide if it wants to be in omnipotent or third-person point-of-view. Even for an omnipotent voice to open by describing Jacques as the “renowned” curator sounds awkward. Who the heck describes himself as a seventy-six-year-old man?
I would suggest that while it’s not a perfect one-hundred percent accurate process by any stretch of the imagination and thus there is some subjectivity (in that naturally individuals will disagree), we can still use basic argumentation principles, close-reading, and explaining with particular explanations to show why some writing is good or bad.
Insisting that we only value it as a literary work because it was thrust upon us by Christian hegemony is problematic in it is an improvable speculation that that’s the ONLY reason we value it since we can’t observe the alternative. Nevertheless, we do have an ancient Hellenistic literary critic named Longinus who predates this hegemony who does praise the Bible in his work, which is suggestive that it had some recognition for its own merits, albeit in only a single reference.
Utilitarian approaches to literature are also problematic in that I don’t think it makes much sense to judge the literary quality of the bible based on the violence it does or doesn’t promote in the same way I don’t think we should judge the quality of Shakespeare’s poems in the way it gets someone a prospective date’s number in a bar or a slap in the face.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure I have a lot of time anymore to devote to continuing a long-winded back-and-forth conversation on this topic. I’ve made my point, you’re free to disagree. So if anyone wants to continue the conversation, last word is all yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, believe me, the bible is great literature. Some of it is downright poetic! I love the rolling rhythm of the lineage of Joseph, all the way back to King David, only to be informed that he was in fact not the daddy of Jesus. If that isn’t irony of the finest order, what is it? Also, I haven’t yet found a single spelling error in the book… 😉
LikeLike
We will have to agree to disagree. I believe any such claim is based on tradition and the rep the bible has an the position it retains in western society.
Personally I think it not worth seeing my backside and as for poetic?
Give me Keats any day – and I am no fan of poetry.
But if you like a good genocide story or a n it of serious incestuous bonking then the bible is the ”Book for the whole family”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess we’ll first have to establish what the criteria are for something to be great literature, before finalizing this. If it’s based on personal opinion, I guess there are people who feel “50 Shades” is great literature.
LikeLike
Well I guess it must be great. Look how many people have dies defending it.
God must have been a bit busy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀
LikeLike
And talking of books …. drop me a line?
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂 Oh Ark…
LikeLike
you are hilarious! the beatitudes are also works of satire if set against the killing god commanded earlier on in the good book
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you’d pick up the irony 😉
LikeLike
Not so sure about this, Consol. It seems to be precisely by engaging with these people (often regarding their extremist positioned posts, like forced-birth or gun control, for example) that one arrives at the conclusions they are, in fact, extremist nutjobs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But, however: We would NOT want to silence them.
Why not? Because if you start silencing extremists, the next thing you’re silencing everyone who disagrees with the mainstream POV, and you end up burning people like Kepler at the stake.
No, for heaven’s sakes don’t silence the extremists! Not even just some of them. We need their opinions so we can monitor that we can still safely say anything we like and not be shot for it by the KGB.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. The fastest way to make something attractive is to ban it. Extremist views must be ridiculed, as reason simply doesn’t work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ridicule is fine… though you’ll also find they ridicule your view right back, and then you need to exercise the same restraint not to call for legal action as you expect from them. 😉 That is the definition of freedom of speech. And of course, if an impartial observer reads such a debate, he will most probably pick the side that has the best arguments. That’s the risk we all run when we don’t silence opposing views.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t mind them trying to ridicule my positions. No problem, I know I’m right 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a healthy attitude. People who want to have the State silence others, demand this because they are silently afraid they might not have a valid viewpoint. They need a “Big Brother” to step in and punch you up for differing from them because they can’t do it themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Par Scott Adams, the problem of the skeptic is they are always right 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this why James and Wally think you are so hot? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you like James’ Adam and Eve joke? I suspect Violet won’t like it much.
LikeLike
Actually I should add my own Adam and Eve Joke!
LikeLiked by 1 person
If someone starts writing a post about forced-birth I think it would be pretty obvious that the person is an extremist nutjob without me having to engage with them.
The goal of engaging with someone should be:
a) changing their minds
b) teaching them something factual they didn’t know or sharing a perspective they haven’t consider.
c) Seeing the faults in one’s own reasoning
By engaging with the Wally’s of the world have you ever changed your mind about anything? Have you ever changed their minds about anything? Have you learned anything from them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have indeed changed their minds. None of them were aware of, for example, the contemporary state of biblical archaeology. Sure, they protest and scream, and present their three (yes three) evangelicals who seem to have their backs, but deep down they know I’m only presenting the truth, the overwhelming consensus. I have presented the case enough times, with enough backing evidence and expert opinion that they simply cannot ignore it. This does alter their thinking.
Over this weekend I have demonstrated to them that they are more moral than their god. That was tough, but we got there in the end.
Your A and B points are certainly true, but I’d add this: letting them know there is strong, rational opposition to their nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may have demonstrated all of that (link?), but did they accept it? You seem to be saying they became aware of the archaeological evidence and didn’t actually change their minds about their positions (but secretly know I’m right) simultaneously. I can demonstrate all sorts of things to be true or false with backing evidence and arguments, but that doesn’t mean my interlocutor would necessarily agree. Never underestimate people’s capacity to rationalize and justify themselves.
It’s one of the major the reasons I try not to spend too much time debating people on the internet these days as opposed to my younger days. Most of the time it’s a waste of time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, outwardly they don’t change their ways, or their thinking, but the change has occurred.
LikeLike
There’s one more goal you can add to that which is to expand the debate. In the case of public debates the existence of varying viewpoints is incredibly important. In fact, indoctrination is heavily dependant on limiting information. By providing alternatives we leave the door open for people on the fence to examine the evidence and decide for themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
True. In relation to “varying viewpoints” I think it’s important to remember that there is often more than Choice A and Choice B in many conversations, but in many debates on the internet the nuances of different position (how position C is different than B) can get lost.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not just on the internet. The false dilemma fallacy is exceedingly popular. Didn’t Bush II once say that “If you’re not with us you’re with the terrorists”? Or something along those lines.
In any event, the premises set forth in this post are heavily flawed. Debate is necessarily adversarial. Discourtesy is a small price to pay for a process which for all intents and purposes has led us to a point in civilization where the most rights are afforded to the most people. And that’s in the entire history of our species.
Once upon a time not so long ago, white people were offended if a black person sat next to them. Men were offended if their wives or children didn’t obey their rules. Certain people were offended if a gay man smiled at them and could use that smile as justification for a “gay panic defence” in court should they be in the mood to beat the smiling gay man into a coma. When one defends the right to be offended above the right of citizens to express themselves freely, that’s what they’re defending.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly! We’re surrounded by extremists who can’t the see the mirror from the fumes coming out their ears.
LikeLike
You truly believe I am an extremist, Vi? Really?
Hilarious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(A pantomime extremist.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, no I’m not!
LikeLike
Hey, I’m an apologist for the Dastardly Debil 🙂
LikeLike
I strongly believe that a little respect goes a long way. We can be on opposite sides, but we don’t have to insult each other. To me, when that happens it just proves that the arguement is lost. I find it difficult to deal with Christians though, because some will call you a heretic for not believing as they do or a sellout for no longer believing the same things they do. The condescening language is as if to say: “you must be ignorant/stupid to understand the Bible differently than me. I’ll educate you so that you’ll stop spreading misinformation.” Is particularly annoying when you know you look at the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, have read up on cultural and historical context and it just doesn’t support the conclusions drawn from a literal reading of an ancient book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can imagine that’s frustrating. I did a post a while back called ‘translation, interpretation and clarification’ trying to point out how difficult it is to ever know what the original intent of any author was. Even after variable efforts at translation, interpretation of the words can throw up a million possibilities. And even if we have the author around to clarify what they meant, people go away with many different messages.
LikeLike
Pingback: A Pot of Violets Calling the Kettle Black | See, there's this thing called biology...
“The problem with extremists and their concern for freedom of speech, is that when they are no longer a minority voice, but the ruling group, I suspect that their concern for freedom of speech, becomes concern for ensuring that the Wrong Opinions don’t take hold again”
I don’t disagree with you here. That could very well be the problem. I think the best way to counter that is for people to embrace that old adage “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but might not invite you to speak at my university if I think you might increase tensions. 🙂
LikeLike
“Sometimes there is nothing for it but to put down a rabid dog…..As for Insanity, she’s just an extremist with a persecution complex. All young earth creationist evangelicals are….”
Awesome Violet, I’m feeling the love, consideration, and tolerance already.
LikeLiked by 2 people
… take the experiences of the group of people they are vilifying into consideration.
Absolutely! But will they? Rarely, if ever. An excellent example are the people who follow a certain U.S. presidential candidate. Not only does he say things that are inflammatory about other segments of society, but his followers enthusiastically agree … and in some cases, even strike out at the “vilified” group.
Your point is well made, but the circumstances surrounding the implementation of it are pretty much unobtainable in today’s society.
LikeLike
“the circumstances surrounding the implementation of it are pretty much unobtainable in today’s society.”
Indeed. I’m trying to make a point about these attacks on the movement to be considerate, like issuing trigger warnings or asking people to change their language if people from a marginalised group feel it insults or belittles them. So many people refuse to even consider why these requests are made, and if they do, they totally fail to empathise with the experiences of other people. And then they jump on an unrelated high horse about free speech. I find it all rather baffling.
But I’m interested that all extremists – from Insanity to Ark and Tom Quiner to Pink, are drawn to this same confusion between consideration and censorship. They feel threatened by simple requests. And yet I’m sure the intensity of anger and certainly about the ‘wrong’ side would lead them to be the strictest censors if they were ever in power.
LikeLike
Threatened, darling? Not at all. Nor have I ever felt the need to threaten to ban anyone. I’m happy to debate and let the chips fall where they may.
The thing with making a request, and knowing the definition of the word request, is that people have the freedom to decline your request. Otherwise what you’re doing is pretending you’re not an extremist imposing a totalitarian vision and just using the word request to mask the fact that you’re imposing a single option which is in line with your own world view. Not a request but a requirement. Just ask Her Royal Highness, she tended to do both on her subject’s passports.
LikeLike
“The thing with making a request, and knowing the definition of the word request, is that people have the freedom to decline your request. ”
That’s true. My point here is that there is a school of thought, especially in extremist camps, that if any minority group asks to be treated with consideration, they are trying to shut down debate/enact censorship/the world is ending. People are started off on the defensive, instead of listening to the concerns of the people asking for respect and properly digesting what their experience is. It’s not even just a case of ‘not saying something’ but finding a more appropriate, less harmful manner of expressing the same thing.
mental health insults
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2012/sep/06/crazy-talk-language-mental-illness-stigma
gay insults
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7289390.stm
I could go on. Examples simply of how we use words in the constantly evolving world of language. It’s not censorship to ask people to think about the words they use, or the ideas they spread, based on the feedback from people who feel the brunt of their lack of consideration. No, we can’t enforce it. But we can talk about the attitude that automatically dismisses it as a valid concern, under the irrelevant guise of ‘free speech’.
LikeLike
Nice editing trick there, Inanity… Great to see you value accuracy when quoting people 😉
LikeLike
Please jz, are you that petty to not notice it is a combination of two quotes? Is it not obvious to any body who cares? Did you see the ………separating the two?
The point was made to the host and you know it, but why would you butcher someone’s tag repeatedly, as in ‘in-anity,’ as opposed to insanity…………………..many have ignored this purposeful jab, but not today.
Your gripe is dismissed entirely.
LikeLike
Elapses, Colourstorm, denote a break in a single quote. Don’t you know basic grammar? Oh sorry, you’re from Texas, I forgot…
LikeLiked by 1 person
@jz
Not ashamed to say I am not from TX though, but while you are fixing your typos, fix the other one 😉
LikeLike
Must be SOM, then. Where are you from, Mississippi, Alabama?
LikeLike
Elapses? Ellipsis! Yikes…
LikeLiked by 1 person
*ellipses 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
We ”share a paragraph”, John. How sweet!
It is always wise to remember that, although religious extremists like Insanitybytes and her god- inspired chums love to fly in to cherry pick the bones like vultures, most of the time they just hang around, chirp incessantly, shit on everything, and behave like the tits they really are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rather “creative” of Insanity… Lying for Jesus is an occupation, isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eusebius! – Hey boy, you got some competition!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Awesome Violet, I’m feeling the love, consideration, and tolerance already.”
I never suggested I could convert any readers to my way of thinking. I’m just opening up the conversation and the extremists are going off their tangent.
LikeLike
Yes, she and Colorstorm are behaving a bit extreme, are they not?
And talking of Extreme ….
Enjoy!
Extreme – There Is No God. Lyrics
So you’re a self proclaimed messiah
Or maybe a blasphemes liar
A clever hypnotic hoax
A hallowed heretic coax
Who tells these stories so old
No, never the same twice told
Speaking in distorted truths
I see that Thomas wants some proof
Did you come to heal the sick
With one more magician’s trick
Ye generation seeks a sign
While blind keeps leading the blind
LikeLike
I used to love Extreme! Don’t remember this song.
LikeLike
Fascinating. So the person who authored a post which proposes limiting other people’s speech so it fits their precise vision of how the world should be isn’t an extremist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope you read the comment I just made above, and no longer think this post is about limiting people’s speech. Honestly, it’s like talking to brick walls on this topic, people are so closed-minded about it and eager to build this enormous straw man to deflect what it is really about.
LikeLike
Violet,
Let me break try to break down this artificial wall.
I think you’re a thoroughly decent human being. I think your intentions are always good. I wouldn’t dream your heart isn’t in the right place.
I’m more than confident you believe in equality for all- independent of ethnicity, class, education, gender or sexual orientation.
We don’t always agree on method or style, but that’s okay. We don’t have to! We can agree on substance and learn about each other’s ways and choose to (or not) adopt a little thing here or there.
How’s that?
LikeLike
Yes, I agree. But we seem to be like mutual sandpaper and wind each other up. Perhaps we can get over it, but so far only our common enemy the Bigot has managed to get us talking with any measure of civility to each other. 🙂
LikeLike
Here’s a nice one. Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. is telling his students to arm themselves and murder Muslims. How nice
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/12/christian-university-president-urges-students-to-carry-guns-and-kill-muslims/
LikeLike
Isn’t incitement to commit a crime a crime itself?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You would think so, but so is running a for-profit business and claiming religious tax exemption. The man is already a criminal.
LikeLike
The comments are almost as wacko … or should that be Waco?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As one commenter wrote. ”If a Muslim had said this we would have droned his ass, but as it was a Christian ”I guess that’s okay.”
As someone who did not come from a fundamentalist background it is sometimes difficult to comprehend this type of mental aberration,although no I think of it, growing up in England we did see the Northern Ireland sectarian violence for years, so I suppose there are parallels.
It brings it home more so when religious fuckwits come onto threads such as this and either ignore those who point to Dickheads like Falwell and then tacitly try to defend their world view, because just as all Muslims are not ISIS, all Christians aren’t Falwell. …or Catholics, or Jehovah Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Methodists, or Anglicans or … well hell, anyone other dumbass except my kinda god fearin, gun carryin’ Christian. Ye haw, Praise the Lawd.’Mable, get m’gun I’m gonna shoot a Mooslim,’
.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In grade 8 the Long twins came to our school, fresh from Belfast. Their father had had enough of the violence and got the family out. Both lads became great friends of mine, but by Veles they were odd when they arrived. Had never heard of religious violence before, and to be honest, I really didn’t know Protestants were any different to us Catholics. Terrible what it can do to kids. It’s just not right.
LikeLike
I have been treated rudely by Violet and nearly every atheist commenting here.
That means, according to this post, atheists are extremists.
I couldn’t agree more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL! Harden up Princess, you give as good as you take, SOM 🙂
LikeLike
John,
Yes, I am truly one of those Christian extremists who hasn’t yet learned how to turn the other cheek.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, first up, turning the other cheek is hardly Christian. A zoo of more impressive minds and orators articulated the same thing long, long, long before Jesus merely repeated what was already in human consciousness.
Lao Tzu, said it this way: I treat those who are good with goodness. And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained
Zhuangzi said it this way: Do good to him who has done you an injury.
Rishabha said it this way: My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.
Mahavira said it this way: Man should subvert anger by forgiveness, subdue pride by modesty, overcome hypocrisy with simplicity, and greed by contentment.
In Hinduism its said this way: A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them–for who is without fault?
And Siddhartha Gautama said it this way: Conquer anger by love. Conquer evil by good. Conquer the stingy by giving. Conquer the liar by truth.
Secondly, I’m not sure turning the other cheek means terribly much when it is you, SOM, who almost always begins every comment by launching impressive, unprovoked tirades. Fortunately for you, though, most of us find it amusing, so it is ignored. You see, what you’re describing here is the contemporary Christian persecution complex. Odd for you, being a Catholic, who’re typically quite normal, but still, the same general game. Here’s how it works:
1) Provoke a situation
2) Fuel situation and force action.
3) Cry “persecution”
Could I ask you this, though, SOM:
If the evangelicals in America got their desires and they seize control of the US government, would you, being a Catholic, feel comfortable? Would you feel safe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now there’s a thought!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I hope he answers….
LikeLike
SOM, I can’t believe you said that! I positively encourage your presence with constant praise. Saying that, yes, many of the atheists who frequent these parts are prone to expressing extremist views.
LikeLike
It boils down to either disarm everyone, or arm everyone.
Disarmed, the herd is at the mercy of the armed nutcase.
Armed, then hopefully someone in the herd will good enough, quick enough, lucky enough to pop off the nutter before he (why always a ‘he’? Don’t ask …) does much more damage.
Legal or otherwise, the bad guys will always have access to guns.
Oops.
But what if we have special good guys, with guns, to mingle with the unarmed herds and protect them from bad guys?
But what if the armed good guys turn sour? Rogue cops—it’s been done before. Not good, inevitable in fact.
So why did the American Founding Fathers put those clauses into their sacred documents—guaranteeing the Right to weaponry? Weapons may have changed since then, but human nature hasn’t.
If the Law can overturn or revoke a Right … then that right was never a Right, it was only ever a privilege (and a temporary one at that) vulnerable to the whim of the guy who (face it) has the most/biggest guns. Government, mostly. Might makes right, not silly documents no matter how sacred.
It’s a bit of a toughie … even in (relatively) gun-free lil’ ol’ New Zealand we have the occasional nutter popping folks off. The only way to stop such is by popping him off back (I believe last time here they were going to send in a priest, but I think there weren’t as many priests as he might have had bullets).
I rather like the idea of letting anyone who can pass some very stringent tests (and with an excellent track record going back yonks) that actually wants to, have a gun.
I wouldn’t carry, myself—when I shoot the only safe place is to sit right in front of the target (and patiently count bangs until the gun runs dry).
LikeLike
” even in (relatively) gun-free lil’ ol’ New Zealand we have the occasional nutter popping folks off. The only way to stop such is by popping him off back”
Is that true? What about the guy on the train in France last year with a couple of guns – he was disarmed by other passengers without guns. If the other passengers had had guns it would undoubtedly have deteriorated into a gun battle with many casualties. I’m not convinced that having a gun makes people generally safer from the very occasional person on rampage. Can you point me to any evidence?
LikeLike
The place was Aramoana and the guy was popping off anyone he could from a distance with a rifle. With the best will in the world you (you, not me—I’d have been clawing my way into the ground) would have had a hard time getting close enough to ‘disarm’ him.
Yes. In some cases folks do get lucky.
In other cases the graveyards are filled with brave people doing the decent thing.
Me? I’d take expert advice and leave it to the experts; and even if I have an excellent rifle, was behind superlative cover with a clear line of sight and at no personal risk … I simply wouldn’t. I’d have to spend the rest of my life justifying my actions to all the nice people who suggest I should have ambled over with a cup of tea and bikkies for the nice man … no thanks.
LikeLike