PDA

View Full Version : Lulzy Facebook Conservative Drama



Chęvou˙x
29 Jul 2010, 07:00pm
The person who made this status update and 1/2 of the people who were debating are unfortunately my friends. They've disappointed me. I may need to seriously rethink our friendships.

Now, if you ask "Wait that's your Facebook?", then my response is simple: Not on my profile, but it was on my feed. The guy who posted that status update is a guy I worked with during an activity in South Dakota, so we added each other a long time ago. I never knew he liked Rush Limbaugh.

It's worth the read. And I mean no offense to those who may be offended. :tape:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_lol_RushLimbaughQuote_Finished2.jpg

Ganzta
29 Jul 2010, 07:12pm
according to your friend's logic

"blah COMMUNIST NAZIS! doh! idrawcircleswithdeologiesthenclaimobamaisouttokill us... GEORGEWASHINGTON!" - Glenn Beck on the conservative ideology

Chęvou˙x
29 Jul 2010, 07:16pm
according to your friend's logic

"blah COMMUNIST NAZIS! doh! idrawcircleswithdeologiesthenclaimobamaisouttokill us... GEORGEWASHINGTON!" - Glenn Beck on the conservative ideology

1) I've now removed both of them. Phew.

2) Didn't you know that Obama is out to kill us? I mean, I thought everyone knew that...


3)
YYi8WSwolM8





:toung:

barackobama
29 Jul 2010, 07:23pm
Moved to politics section..... Lol

jeN
29 Jul 2010, 07:27pm
Moved to politics section..... Lol

Now I can't post tl;dr without getting yelled at by potshot. =[

barackobama
29 Jul 2010, 07:28pm
Exactly :)

Drox
29 Jul 2010, 07:32pm
Same arguments different day

SgtJoo
29 Jul 2010, 07:54pm
Sounds like regular right wing psycho babble which I'd expect to hear from Rush or Glenn... am I missing something?

Jaffa
30 Jul 2010, 04:51am
I would of kept them as friends for more lols

PotshotPolka
30 Jul 2010, 09:58am
"at this point i think we can agree to disagree, because i respect your beliefs though i dont agree with them."

Person needs to be hit with a hammer.

Chęvou˙x
30 Jul 2010, 03:27pm
I would of kept them as friends for more lols

I might do that. Maybe the "I accidentally removed you because I clicked the wrong name" excuse will work. Unfortunately, I live in a place with a lot of people like that (who like Rush), so I will probably encounter stuff like that in the future from other folks on Facebook.


"at this point i think we can agree to disagree, because i respect your beliefs though i dont agree with them."

Person needs to be hit with a hammer.


:heh:

I'm sure the person didn't want to cause a huge drama thread of Facebook, but I do agree. I would've intervened myself, but I unfortunately wasn't willing to tolerate their "any ideology without a god [which is supposed to represent "an ultimate standard of morality" I guess] is stupid, like liberals" rationale. :ohwell:

Shadowex3
30 Jul 2010, 04:39pm
I'm actually getting kicked out of my Cybernations alliance because of someone with pretty much the same beliefs actually. He's a huge gay-hating conservative that won't even use the same bathrooms that gay people use and wants them to all have totally seperate facilities even down to water fountains (sound familiar?) and he automatically calls anyone that disagrees a "<expletitive/adjective> liberal <expletitive/noun>". Naturally he charged me with harassment for making the obvious historical comparison...

E-Drama aside I personally like to sum up my opposition to right wingnut bullshittery about Obama and Liberals with one picture (no idea what adamthinks is about, never been there):

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2402/obamamakeupyourmind.jpg

Now if only I could find a single picture that so coherently points out the underlying bullshit in LEFT wingnut bullshittery about... well I suppose they need to pick a single thing first.

SgtJoo
30 Jul 2010, 05:24pm
I'm actually getting kicked out of my Cybernations alliance because of someone with pretty much the same beliefs actually. He's a huge gay-hating conservative that won't even use the same bathrooms that gay people use and wants them to all have totally seperate facilities even down to water fountains (sound familiar?) and he automatically calls anyone that disagrees a "<expletitive/adjective> liberal <expletitive/noun>". Naturally he charged me with harassment for making the obvious historical comparison...

E-Drama aside I personally like to sum up my opposition to right wingnut bullshittery about Obama and Liberals with one picture (no idea what adamthinks is about, never been there):

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2402/obamamakeupyourmind.jpg

Now if only I could find a single picture that so coherently points out the underlying bullshit in LEFT wingnut bullshittery about... well I suppose they need to pick a single thing first.

Technically though, he could be Muslim + one of the others...

Drox
31 Jul 2010, 01:26am
Now if only I could find a single picture that so coherently points out the underlying bullshit in LEFT wingnut bullshittery about... well I suppose they need to pick a single thing first.

Im sure if you look hard enough you could from some about Bush like you do for Obama lol

Sander Cohen
31 Jul 2010, 01:47am
Technically though, he could be Muslim + one of the others...

Except communism

Religion =/= Communism

PotshotPolka
31 Jul 2010, 09:24am
Except communism

Religion =/= Communism

Not necessarily, Lenin approved of Tolstoy and agreed to let the Tolstoy movement (Orthodox Christians) do as it pleased so long as they weren't politically active.

Shadowex3
31 Jul 2010, 08:09pm
Technically though, he could be Muslim + one of the others...

I always figured they were referring to muslim as in one of the islamofascist branches, just as they meant communism as in USSR style. That would make basically any one of those inherently unmixable with the others.

SgtJoo
31 Jul 2010, 08:49pm
I always figured they were referring to muslim as in one of the islamofascist branches, just as they meant communism as in USSR style. That would make basically any one of those inherently unmixable with the others.

I can't profess to know the specificities of certain radical conservative views but I doubt that Glenn Beck truly believes that Obama is a card carrying member of Al-Qaeda who defected from 1980 Soviet Russia to carry out a Nazi purification rite. I could be wrong.

Drox
31 Jul 2010, 08:59pm
I can't profess to know the specificities of certain radical conservative views but I doubt that Glenn Beck truly believes that Obama is a card carrying member of Al-Qaeda who defected from 1980 Soviet Russia to carry out a Nazi purification rite. I could be wrong.

Its mostly due to Obama's associations when he was younger that some believe he may have a radical belief system. I wouldnt say he is a communist but he does believe in socialist ideals that is borderline communist. Of course people will argue this but would it be the same people who had che guevara flags in their Obama campaign offices. lol

PotshotPolka
1 Aug 2010, 12:46am
I can't profess to know the specificities of certain radical conservative views but I doubt that Glenn Beck truly believes that Obama is a card carrying member of Al-Qaeda who defected from 1980 Soviet Russia to carry out a Nazi purification rite. I could be wrong.

You are, he's actually a used car salesman that knows what brand of political spin sells.

Shadowex3
1 Aug 2010, 04:01pm
Its mostly due to Obama's associations when he was younger that some believe he may have a radical belief system. I wouldnt say he is a communist but he does believe in socialist ideals that is borderline communist. Of course people will argue this but would it be the same people who had che guevara flags in their Obama campaign offices. lol

Hilarious because everybody I know that is NOT an american actually still believes in to be more right wing than even the right wing candidates in their own country. Just goes to show you that even when someone is more right wing than germany's still-existing official National Socialist party they will still be considered "borderline communist" by people that apparently failed every history class they ever took because they obviously have NO CLUE what those words actually mean but they keep using them.

Lux
3 Aug 2010, 12:01am
I don't like all of these labels for people's opinions. It's too much to keep up with.....and I rarely find myself agreeing with any ideology to a near enough extent that I would say I am of that ideology......this guy seems to think that you HAVE to pick a side......the world is simply not that black and white.

An ultimate standard......it sounds like he wants everyone to be brainwashed clones of each other.

PotshotPolka
3 Aug 2010, 08:11am
I don't like all of these labels for people's opinions. It's too much to keep up with.....and I rarely find myself agreeing with any ideology to a near enough extent that I would say I am of that ideology......this guy seems to think that you HAVE to pick a side......the world is simply not that black and white.

An ultimate standard......it sounds like he wants everyone to be brainwashed clones of each other.


Well, using god as a crutch (for that matter, moral and societal obligations, and if you include those no major party is exempt from its usage) when you can't fight a battle of logic has always been an effective means of carrying on debates in the political arena.

Drox
3 Aug 2010, 08:16am
Hilarious because everybody I know that is NOT an american actually still believes in to be more right wing than even the right wing candidates in their own country. Just goes to show you that even when someone is more right wing than germany's still-existing official National Socialist party they will still be considered "borderline communist" by people that apparently failed every history class they ever took because they obviously have NO CLUE what those words actually mean but they keep using them.

Each country has their own right/left wing beliefs (depending on what issues those countries face), Obama is far from being right wing. lol So idk what the hell ure talking about. :P

PotshotPolka
3 Aug 2010, 01:25pm
Each country has their own right/left wing beliefs (depending on what issues those countries face), Obama is far from being right wing. lol So idk what the hell ure talking about. :P


Well, the issue of nationalist socialist is the grey area of fascism, it essentially applies some of the tenants of socialism towards the people that are designated as belonging to the nation that makes up the state and them only, in contrast to the Comintern or socialist international groups.

Also, the belief that each and every country's politics are unique unto themselves is only accurate up to a point. Many of the wedge issues like welfare and government spending are universal while societal issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc) vary.

In all honesty the entire Obama Nazi thing is warrantless, as is the "Muslim connection". That brings us full circle to the commie thing, but we've argued to death in other threads that all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists, and the degree to which a politician and his/her party advocates socialist policies depends on the political climate and their ideologies, with that being said, the Democrats compared to mainstream labor/socialist parties in Europe is further to the right than their norms, since socialism here in the U.S. is a dirty word. Whatever his personal views may be, his policies are not those of a die hard socialist attempting to completely nationalize sectors of the economy like Labor's shadow PMs during Thatcher's era.

Chęvou˙x
15 Aug 2010, 06:41pm
These are other "friends". I'll add more photos if their convo continues.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_Shame_WomenCantBeInMilitaryCauseBib le2.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W-_sABor77E/0.jpg

Note: I'm trying to get as good in Spanish as I am in German, so don't hate the Spanish Facebook.

TheTruth
15 Aug 2010, 07:07pm
These are other "friends". I'll add more photos if their convo continues.

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_Shame_WomenCantBeInMilitaryCauseBib le2.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W-_sABor77E/0.jpg

Note: I'm trying to get as good in Spanish as I am in German, so don't hate the Spanish Facebook.

Well someone has to cook the food.

Chęvou˙x
15 Aug 2010, 08:35pm
:pound:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_Shame_WomenCantBeInMilitaryCauseBib le_Updated2.jpg

Chęvou˙x
16 Aug 2010, 09:49am
Keep in mind that this new poster is a woman. She is a full-grown adult who, according to her profile, is 41. This woman quite literally states—indirectly—that herself and the OP (who posted that status update) should just deal with the fact that "we are not meant for anything beyond the family and household"; she says this by agreeing with the others who posted using the Bible as justification. I am personally appalled and surprised that a woman would actually think that she and other women should never strive for personal achievements outside of their religion and family lives.

People really do lack the independence, imagination, and self-respect apparently.


http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_Shame_WomenCantBeInMilitaryCauseBib le_UpdatedAgain.jpg

tacosndew
16 Aug 2010, 11:56am
Keep in mind that this new poster is a woman. She is a full-grown adult who, according to her profile, is 41. This woman quite literally states—indirectly—that herself and the OP (who posted that status update) should just deal with the fact that "we are not meant for anything beyond the family and household"; she says this by agreeing with the others who posted using the Bible as justification. I am personally appalled and surprised that a woman would actually think that she and other women should never strive for personal achievements outside of their religion and family lives.

People really do lack the independence, imagination, and self-respect apparently.


http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r173/Lancelot56/FacebookStatus_Shame_WomenCantBeInMilitaryCauseBib le_UpdatedAgain.jpg

So just because she's a Christian you think she has a lack of "independence, imagination, and self-respect"? A Muslim woman would probably say relatively the same things about maintaining a household , but i don't see you bashing them. And it probably never occurred to you that some people are content to stay within the family and household setting.

Chęvou˙x
16 Aug 2010, 12:05pm
So it's okay with you that the woman's telling the girl to not do what she wants to do? It's okay with you that the woman says all women should stay in the household because "God said so in the Bible"? And when did I say people should be restricted from what they want to do? I never said that; the woman has.

Moreover, I'm not 'bashing' Muslim women because they're not a part of the topic. Yes, they live with the circumstances under strict adherence to religious traditions, but what does thay have to do with my argument?

My issue isn't with the belief; my issue's with the restriction of freewill. The option, regardless of whether it's taken or not, should always be available. Why can't Christian (or, for that matter, Muslim) woman do what they please? Why are the men superior? Because women "can't handle stress"? That's a bunch of bullshit.

If the woman wants to spend her life within the family and household setting, then so be it. I'm not restricting her, am I? But is she trying to restrict another Christian from achieving life goals? Food for thought, bud.

tacosndew
16 Aug 2010, 12:10pm
So it's okay with you that the woman's telling the girl to not do what she wants to do? It's okay with you that the woman says all women should stay in the household because "God said so in the Bible"? And when did I say people should be restricted from what they want to do? I never said that; the woman has.

Moreover, I'm not 'bashing' Muslim women because they're not a part of the topic. Yes, they live with the circumstances under strict adherence to religious traditions, but what does thay have to do with my argument?

My issue isn't with the belief; my issue's with the restriction of freewill. Why can't Christian (or, for that matter, Muslim) woman do what they please? Why are the men superior? Because women "can't handle stress"? That's a bunch of bullshit.

Look Christian women can do what they please, if that particular woman wants to stay home and encourages others to do so who are you to say they shouldn't? And anyway how many women do you know that would rather be in the military than making a family? I know there are exceptions to this but for the most part, i'm right. And men are physically superior, I am not being sexist that's just how humankind was made. I'm not saying I agree with everything this woman says but not everything is terrible.

Chęvou˙x
16 Aug 2010, 12:22pm
Look Christian women can do what they please, if that particular woman wants to stay home and encourages others to do so who are you to say they shouldn't? And anyway how many women do you know that would rather be in the military than making a family? I know there are exceptions to this but for the most part, i'm right. And men are physically superior, I am not being sexist that's just how humankind was made. I'm not saying I agree with everything this woman says but not everything is terrible.

Who am I to say she shouldn't? Who are you to say I can't?

How many women do I know personally who want the military life and/or go into combat? Ok, let's see if I can estimate how many ROTC cadets and Service Academy students I've met...

How are you right? How am I wrong? You've yet to provide warrants to your arguments. Let's hear them.

So, your rationale for why women can't be in combat is because they're weaker? Oh really? So, you mean, all the girls I've met who can run faster, run stronger, do more physical work, have more motivation, have more dedication, and typically have higher test scores are lesser than most of my male peers who can't compete? Yeah, ok. Just like how gay men are an abomination to your military, right?

Everything which is said in that Facebook conversation is disastrous in my opinion. Why? Because not only are their arguments based solely on the Bible and the word of God, but they're trying to peer-pressure the OP from going into the military as a combatant. Why is that acceptable? You've yet to explain.

Oh shit, a woman can be a combat medic! Yeah, she can be on the field, amidst heavy fire, while doing her job; yeah, a woman is able to handle the physical and emotional stress of being a combat medic even with menstruation and breasts larger than those of men. If there are female combat medics, why can there not be female infantrymen? Conflict of interest between the different-gender soldiers, you say. Ok: make different units. It's segregation, not discrimination. Segregation in that situation is not mean, wouldn't necessarily break morale of the female troops, and breaks down your argument of "well, they can't be in combat because there would be gender issues". There are already issues with homosexuality, so what'd be different?

tacosndew
16 Aug 2010, 12:49pm
First, the amount of women you know personally who want the military life is not going to be more than those who don't.

Also, you asked earlier "why are the men superior" ONE of the differences between men and women is obvious physiology. If you recall I said I don't agree with everything that was said, so yea if she wants to go into the military, go for it. I'm saying if both of these women are Christians and they have certain theological convictions about being homebuilders and such, why is that a problem?

You're also putting words in my mouth throughout that whole reply, I didn't say anything about gays or segregation. You can stop predicting how I'm going to respond to help your own argument.

And saying "all the girls I've met" is pretty vague, that could be three for all I know, wow! that's a lot!
and also to say "typically have higher test scores" when talking about women to men is arbitrary, where is your proof? And the reason women might have "more motivation" is because they have something to prove to the men who so outnumber them, it's solidarity.

Chęvou˙x
16 Aug 2010, 01:34pm
First, the amount of women you know personally who want the military life is not going to be more than those who don't.

Also, you asked earlier "why are the men superior" ONE of the differences between men and women is obvious physiology. If you recall I said I don't agree with everything that was said, so yea if she wants to go into the military, go for it. I'm saying if both of these women are Christians and they have certain theological convictions about being homebuilders and such, why is that a problem?

You're also putting words in my mouth throughout that whole reply, I didn't say anything about gays or segregation. You can stop predicting how I'm going to respond to help your own argument.

And saying "all the girls I've met" is pretty vague, that could be three for all I know, wow! that's a lot!
and also to say "typically have higher test scores" when talking about women to men is arbitrary, where is your proof? And the reason women might have "more motivation" is because they have something to prove to the men who so outnumber them, it's solidarity.

Just like how the number of housewives will outnumber how many stay-at-home dads exist. Is anyone telling those dads that they can't stay at home because "God intended for men to work outside the family while the woman stays home"?

Yes, we men have more testosterone that gives us a natural advantage on muscle growth. Fortunately, women are capable of gaining as nearly as much as men through, admittedly, more physical work; muscle size is hardly muscle strength or endurance. And as far as physiological (dis)advantages are concerned, aren't women naturally more flexible? Does flexibility not have a place in physical abilities? What about women's ability to better multi-task? What about women's natural ability to organize? Do those not have a part in combat? Do multi-tasking and organizational skills have no value to combat? Saying women are incapable of combat because their muscles aren't the same size as male bodybuilders is ill-educated.

Mentioning another point into an argument isn't putting words into your mouth; it's mentioning another point. Mentioning how gays and women should be given more rights in the U.S. military answers the argument of "well they can't because", which is what I've assume is some of your argument. By "predicting", I lay down more groundwork for my case, which also is something many folks do. If you can't, then fine, but don't get upset at me because I mentioned additional points that I linked.

How many girls have you met that don't meet that qualification? Or, y'know what, I'll actually play at your game. How many women have you met that do want to have a military lifestyle? Have many women have you met that are capable with physically staying up with male counterparts while mentally/academically surpassing them? I'm sure your answers will also be vague, so bite me.

Arbitrary, huh? It's seems pretty arbitrary to say "some people like to say home". In fact, that's pretty vague. It also seems arbitrary to say "men are superior, it's just how humankind was made". In fact, that too is vague; are all men superior? Hypocrite.

As far as saying "woman are probably more motivated because they having to prove", that's vague too. Are you saying that women have no individual goals to strive for which are fueled by something that's not social conflict? Are you telling me that women never have motivation from personal goals outside of social conflict? After all, if you're going to pick at me for being vague, then I'll return the favor.

Oh, and you still haven't provided your warrants, and nor have you provided your own proof; rather, you've made analytics from the fact that you're not pleased with my lack of complimenting Christianity. Don't criticize analytics when you're doing the same thing. Hypocrite. Nonetheless, I'm at least waiting for those warrants :biggrin:

---

Obviously though, you and I are bickering without any purpose; this is no longer a debate.

Your main point here, as you said, is how, in your opinion, there's no problem with feedback which the OP received, and that there's no issue with the OP being told that she's destined by God to do other things. Since that's the argument here and none of the other things which we've said, I'll just ignore everything else (unless you wish to continue those) and answer your direct question.

First, you need to admit that this is no longer a debate of the Facebook conversation, but rather a debate about how upset you are because I didn't compliment Christianity. If that assumption is wrong, then redirect me.

Second, the views of those who replied to the status update are not my criticism; their views are not my issue. Here's my issue, which you haven't answered either:
...my issue's with the restriction of freewill. The option, regardless of whether it's taken or not, should always be available. Why can't Christian (or, for that matter, Muslim) woman do what they please?

So, why is their criticism a problem? That's what you asked, right? Because I will not tolerate listening to someone who has never and will never enlighten themself due to preference of staying at home and who criticized another because that other wants to do the opposite. Because I will not be a passerby to someone peer-pressuring another from achieving live goals due to religious conflicts. Because I will not tolerate someone who's only rationale is the Bible and criticizes anyone else for not following the Bible. To say the OP can't serve in the military due to gender is ignorant, arrogant, unintelligent, ill-educated, close-minded, and inside-the-box.

Why do I have a problem? Because I'm sick of stupidity. There are greater things out there which are not God, the Bible, or the Church.

*sigh* Did I go off-topic again?

---

Why are you debating me again? I don't mind good, healthy debates whatsoever, but you appear ambivalent: you agree with me but you don't. Huh?

tacosndew
16 Aug 2010, 03:30pm
Ok, the majority of men, are physically stronger than the majority of women, this is a fact. As I have said there are exceptions but for the most part physiologically men are stronger.

It isn't vague to say women are more motivated because of solidarity, they want to fit into the military they joined, so they try harder to succeed, in no way is that vague, in fact pretty much everyone wants to be accepted and recognized, it is no different in the military.

Anyway.

I'm not concerned that you offended Christianity specifically, it could be any worldview and I would have responded the same way. It's just that if somone truly belives in their religion, and another person reminds them of something included thusly that shouldn't be a problem.

I'm saying a Christian or Muslim woman should be able to do whatever they want, BUT if a fellow member of that ideology brings something up like being a homebuilder instead of a fighter, that shouldn't be a problem, because in Christianity and Islam the woman is supposed to be the homebuilder, the nurterer, and the caretaker. It isn't a restriction of freewill, when the person out of their own freewill to begin with, accepted that specific religion. And the reason the OP was "criticized" for not following what is said in Bible is because if they professed that specific faith in no way should a rebuke by another of that reiligion be a problem (Keep in mind this applies to all ideologies, worldviews, religions, etc...).

You yourself are ignorant when you say:
"Why do I have a problem? Because I'm sick of stupidity. There are greater things out there which are not God, the Bible, or the Church."

Hundreds of millions of people find solace and fulfillment in God, the Bible, and the Church. Regardless of what you personally believe you shouldn't rip this person to shreads for their personal beliefs. For you to say that such things are stupid is in fact, "ignorant, arrogant, unintelligent, ill-educated, close-minded, and inside-the-box". I don't want to get into a "does God exist" because that is for another time and place.

You seem to be a rather open-minded person, if that is so, why is it so hard for you to let people believe what they believe and rebuke others in their religions accordingly if that religion was chosen through a freewilled decision?

PotshotPolka
16 Aug 2010, 07:08pm
You seem to be a rather open-minded person, if that is so, why is it so hard for you to let people believe what they believe and rebuke others in their religions accordingly if that religion was chosen through a freewilled decision?

Because we reserve the right to believe that an idiot's opinion is worth dirt, it's called conviction and is warranted by a burden of proof.

The people in that thread are mistaken on a point you fail to see. They may be expressing their opinions, thing's they have an inalienable right to by nature but they are making a taboo statement, they're saying "Women shouldn't be in the military, active combat or otherwise" If you were to make the statement "Women that cannot reach a specific level of physical fitness or strength are not capable for certain duties, that's entirely different and plausible" If you want to make the argument that "ZOMG, The vagina scares men and makes them unable to focus on their duties" then why not make sex-segregated units?

Their statements are fallacious because they fall back onto biblical and personal anecdotes instead of relying on, say, fact driven, quantifiable studies done on military personnel.

I don't give two shits about your god, and in the realm of debates and court he is nothing but a fucking annoyance. You cannot expect to make a logical debate on an entity that cannot even be confirmed.

As far as respecting someone's religion goes, I respect the right to have your four walls to preach in, and your community fundraisers, and your building projects. I don't have to respect your goddamn ethnic/religious politics. I understand clearly that a religious zealot won't be objective about someone else's right to an abortion, drink alcohol, have sex outside of marriage, etc. That's the problem with religious conservatism, they strive to enforce a moral standard that is based on a religion, and make it law. If it's wrong to rebuke them for trying to enforce a belief system I didn't sign up for then I'd rather not be right.

tacosndew
16 Aug 2010, 09:23pm
Because we reserve the right to believe that an idiot's opinion is worth dirt, it's called conviction and is warranted by a burden of proof.

The people in that thread are mistaken on a point you fail to see. They may be expressing their opinions, thing's they have an inalienable right to by nature but they are making a taboo statement, they're saying "Women shouldn't be in the military, active combat or otherwise" If you were to make the statement "Women that cannot reach a specific level of physical fitness or strength are not capable for certain duties, that's entirely different and plausible" If you want to make the argument that "ZOMG, The vagina scares men and makes them unable to focus on their duties" then why not make sex-segregated units?

Their statements are fallacious because they fall back onto biblical and personal anecdotes instead of relying on, say, fact driven, quantifiable studies done on military personnel.

I don't give two shits about your god, and in the realm of debates and court he is nothing but a fucking annoyance. You cannot expect to make a logical debate on an entity that cannot even be confirmed.

As far as respecting someone's religion goes, I respect the right to have your four walls to preach in, and your community fundraisers, and your building projects. I don't have to respect your goddamn ethnic/religious politics. I understand clearly that a religious zealot won't be objective about someone else's right to an abortion, drink alcohol, have sex outside of marriage, etc. That's the problem with religious conservatism, they strive to enforce a moral standard that is based on a religion, and make it law. If it's wrong to rebuke them for trying to enforce a belief system I didn't sign up for then I'd rather not be right.

I could give a flying fuck about YOUR opinion too, but if you have read anything I have written you see that the reason they use biblical and personal anectdotes is because they both have the same ideology, therefore if they both believe it, it is a valid argument when using those reasons from that perspective.

PotshotPolka
16 Aug 2010, 09:30pm
I could give a flying fuck about YOUR opinion too, but if you have read anything I have written you see that the reason they use biblical and personal anectdotes is because they both have the same ideology, therefore if they both believe it, it is a valid argument when using those reasons from that perspective.

It really, really isn't, because they're pushing their ideology onto other people's lives and careers, but you can't seem to grasp that.

Harbor
16 Aug 2010, 09:48pm
Off topic but i lol'd at "me gusta" and the like button.

tacosndew
17 Aug 2010, 12:49am
It really, really isn't, because they're pushing their ideology onto other people's lives and careers, but you can't seem to grasp that.

Those "people" believe the same ideology and woman in this post is reminding the OP of a way something can be interpreted in the Bible, YOU can't seem to grasp that people who have the same religion tend to let each other know if they are perhaps off in an area.

Chęvou˙x
17 Aug 2010, 07:57am
And you can't seem to grasp our argument.

Potshot and I have both said that every person in the Facebook conversation has the right to their beliefs and to criticize those who also have those beliefs. He and I have also both said we don't agree with their arguments, and that the OP of the status update should ignore the others because, as Potshot and I believe, the religion which the OP follows is restricting from exploring things outside of religious traditions.

See, what you're not understanding is this: You say that the others' criticisms are legitimate because they're criticizing someone of the same religion, but Potshot and I already know that and we (or, at least I) agree with that right. You're arguing something that he and I already agree with, thus your entire argument here has been completely moot.

What you're missing is this: He and I are criticizing the critics because we believe the whole argument which was made by the others is silly. We know why it was made, we know how/where it was made, and we know that we can't stop it from being made. However, we know also that the argument would restrict the OP from exploring life, which is why we're criticizing the others.

I haven't given and couldn't give a flying fuck about your opinion either because you haven't understood my argument from the beginning.

PotshotPolka
17 Aug 2010, 09:49am
Those "people" believe the same ideology and woman in this post is reminding the OP of a way something can be interpreted in the Bible, YOU can't seem to grasp that people who have the same religion tend to let each other know if they are perhaps off in an area.

No. My point is that they're extending their belief system to ALL women who would join or are currently serving in the military, numbnuts. This isn't about the two biddies in the bottom of the thread high-fiving over their finding god, its about the posts higher up saying "women have a place, its called the kitchen, it says so right here".

Focus_
17 Aug 2010, 10:54am
Circle logic is circular.

I find it ridiculous when people claim that you cannot be moral without being religious..



“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be
the hijacking of morality by religion.”
Arthur C Clarke

tacosndew
17 Aug 2010, 11:05am
No. My point is that they're extending their belief system to ALL women who would join or are currently serving in the military, numbnuts. This isn't about the two biddies in the bottom of the thread high-fiving over their finding god, its about the posts higher up saying "women have a place, its called the kitchen, it says so right here".

Well when extended to ALL women, those who don't follow Christianity don't have to take that advice do they? The people in this post is are extending the mutual belief they have with the OP TO the OP, that is acceptable. And it even says in the Bible that you shouldn't hold "unbelievers" if you will, to the same standard as Christians are held. So in that respect, I agree they shouldn't push their faith on unwilling people. BUT as I've said before people within the same belief system should be able to tell each other ideas and such that are held within that religion. The people at the top of the post don't put it so bluntly as "stay in the kitchen", they feel women have more of a supporting role. I mean Bible aside, for MOST civilizations and religions in history, women weren't the fighters, they were the caretakers and homebuilders, and the men were the warriors.

tacosndew
17 Aug 2010, 11:06am
Circle logic is circular.

I find it ridiculous when people claim that you cannot be moral without being religious..



“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be
the hijacking of morality by religion.”
Arthur C Clarke

Nobody said that...

Chęvou˙x
17 Aug 2010, 01:41pm
I'm officially convinced that you can't read whatsoever, Taco.

PotshotPolka
17 Aug 2010, 02:00pm
Well when extended to ALL women, those who don't follow Christianity don't have to take that advice do they?


They do when it comes down to a vote and it's superimposed on them by the law, moron.

/thread

tacosndew
17 Aug 2010, 03:25pm
I'm officially convinced that you can't read whatsoever, Taco.

In regards to Focus, I meant in this thread, I'm aware it's a quote.

And to potshot, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.

Focus_
20 Aug 2010, 08:56pm
I'm officially convinced that you can't read whatsoever, Taco.

I lol'd. And your name actually is impossible to pronounce. :huh: