Philosophy Religion, Belief, and Democracy

[LowlandsOfHolland]

I disagree. I think that even two-party states require this, even if to a lesser degree than totalitarian societies. There has never been nor will there ever be an open society of the liberal sort.


I never said that non-Christians shouldn't be allowed their spaces. I simply expressed skepticism that there could ever be any "neutralized" spaces with regards to religion, given how central religion is to our lives. Even its absence is noticeable.


Once again, misrepresenting my views. Replace antisemitism with "prejudice against Jews" and watch your argument deflate. Because antisemitism doesn't mean "prejudice against Jews." It means "something I don't like." I suggest reading this article here.

In summary, I do believe that there is such thing as prejudice against Jews. What I deny is that antisemitism actually means anything at all.


I do say think that lesbians, gay men, and bi people should only be allowed heterosexual marriage or celibacy as choices. But I don't see this as evil. You do.


"Masochistic" implies I have sexual desire for them. I most certainly don't. You must certainly have some kind of masochistic desire if you keep replying to me. Or is this pride? Are you determined to not let me have the last word? I myself enjoy bringing out more and more of your disgusting nature into the foray. It allows me to build a profile of you for future reference.

1. "A lesser degree." Bucko, if there are two political parties and they have different views, then by definition there is not one singular point of view that is enforced by violence on everyone. What you are describing is simply the defense of the liberal pluralist society against those forces that seek to destroy it, and then weeping and crying because you happen to live in a society where you believe yourself to be on the wrong end of state violence.

2. "Their spaces." Well goody goody gumdrops for you, but the point is that public spaces should be for the public, not tradCaths and snake-handlers commiserating while the rest of us, Presbyterians to Vajrayana Buddhists, are permitted on sufferance.

3. "Terms like "prejudice against Jewish people" are not meaningless names, they have definitions. The use of violence to oppress Jewish people to force them into a status of formal inferiority constitutes prejudice against Jewish people."

I am unable to see where this argument deflates if you use "prejudice against Jewish people."

4. What does your desire to control the sex lives of people and rape them by proxy have to do with my statement that you're a coward if you don't make it apparent to lesbians and gay men and bi people that you want to rape them by proxy upfront? Are you saying that you do so but ended up rendering it so poorly the meaning was lost?

5. I can go on about my "disgusting nature" more if you like. I'm not sure what this "profile" means. Surely you can't be using me for masturbation fodder?

 

[The Name of Love]

1. "A lesser degree." Bucko, if there are two political parties and they have different views, then by definition there is not one singular point of view that is enforced by violence on everyone. What you are describing is simply the defense of the liberal pluralist society against those forces that seek to destroy it, and then weeping and crying because you happen to live in a society where you believe yourself to be on the wrong end of state violence.

Ah yes, because the inner party and the outer party really constitutes a real debate. So you put a lot more faith in democracy than myself.

2. "Their spaces." Well goody goody gumdrops for you, but the point is that public spaces should be for the public, not tradCaths and snake-handlers commiserating while the rest of us, Presbyterians to Vajrayana Buddhists, are permitted on sufferance.

So you think public spaces should be atheistic - I'm sorry "secular."

3. "Terms like "prejudice against Jewish people" are not meaningless names, they have definitions. The use of violence to oppress Jewish people to force them into a status of formal inferiority constitutes prejudice against Jewish people."

I said terms like antisemitism are meaningless. So you either can't read or you are incapable of being honest due to being enraged.

I am unable to see where this argument deflates if you use "prejudice against Jewish people.

So you are accusing me of being prejudiced against Jews for no good reason. Alright.

4. What does your desire to control the sex lives of people and rape them by proxy have to do with my statement that you're a coward if you don't make it apparent to lesbians and gay men and bi people that you want to rape them by proxy upfront? Are you saying that you do so but ended up rendering it so poorly the meaning was lost?

So you think prohibiting certain sexual arrangements is a form of rape then. I see you have a very sophisticated belief system about sexual ethics that's both idiosyncratic and highly dogmatic.

5. I can go on about my "disgusting nature" more if you like. I'm not sure what this "profile" means. Surely you can't be using me for masturbation fodder?

More like a psychological profile.

And it tells me a lot about you how you constantly try to demean those you disagree with by accusing them of... being attracted to you. So you're either a Freudian that thinks every one of my actions is motivated by sexual desire, or you have such a negative bodily image that you think anyone attracted to you must have something wrong them.

I think I've learned more than enough about you. Good day!

 

[LowlandsOfHolland]

Ah yes, because the inner party and the outer party really constitutes a real debate. So you put a lot more faith in democracy than myself.



So you think public spaces should be atheistic - I'm sorry "secular."



I said terms like antisemitism are meaningless. So you either can't read or you are incapable of being honest due to being enraged.



So you are accusing me of being prejudiced against Jews for no good reason. Alright.



So you think prohibiting certain sexual arrangements is a form of rape then. I see you have a very sophisticated belief system about sexual ethics that's both idiosyncratic and highly dogmatic.


More like a psychological profile.

And it tells me a lot about you how you constantly try to demean those you disagree with by accusing them of... being attracted to you. So you're either a Freudian that thinks every one of my actions is motivated by sexual desire, or you have such a negative bodily image that you think anyone attracted to you must have something wrong them.

I think I've learned more than enough about you. Good day!

1. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Inner Party and the Outer Party are both parts of the same political party in the one-party state of Oceania/Airstrip One. The "Inner Party" is in turn an elite order within the broader "Outer Party". The reference you are making thus is entirely nonsensical to someone who isn't so immersed in the world of reactionary thought that they believe that all currently existing democracies are effectively one-party states, such that it becomes credible to say that Democrats are just the elite order of Republicans.

2. I am saying they should be neutralized to allow as many possible religious beliefs to participate in broader society. This doesn't require atheism unless you take an extremely broad view of atheism as just the lack of affirmation of a particular religious belief.

3. If the shoe fits, then it fits.

4. I am saying that forcing people to have sex with people they do not want to have sex with is raping them by proxy, yes. I am not sure how believing forcing people to have nonconsensual sex is a form of rape is "idiosyncratic" sexual ethics.

5. What? I am suggesting you're horny because you fantasized about me, or someone like me, beating you up. That's not a normal thing to fantasize about except in the context of sexual masochism. It's kind of weird that you think that this would imply a negative bodily image. I guess you're so deep in this that you think that women being sexually active is really because they hate themselves or some self-serving bullshit?

 

[Deleted member]

Can somebody please split the derail into its own thread? Or, stretching the analogy of derail and how big of one this is, its own railroad?

 

[Scottty]

Skimming through this, I'm wondering if meaningful discussion is possible with someone who posts long paragraphs that all boil down to complaining about Christianity not affirming her sexual choices.

I wonder how the ancient Egyptians would view the LGBTwhatevers and their open desire to debase the institution of marriage into a parody.