Religion Good news!

[Scouse]

you love arguing with him so much?

At the moment I'm having a go at Toht in this thread.

Toht has been following me from thread to thread and is usually the first poster after any of my posts. He's been doing it for about 18 months now and there's *fuck all* I can do about it. I've asked him politely to stop, but he didn't. I put him on ignore - but he still posted about me and in the threads I started.

On the religion point - no. I'm not going to back down. Every time something particularly nasty or funny happens I'm gonna post it here. It usually happens 3 or 4 times a year.

If you don't like it, don't read it. That's not a lot of threads to avoid.

Other than that - I can't help the fact that Toht seems to need to post constantly near me. It's irritating the hell out of me and I've told him so - but he's not stopping any time soon.


Edit: I've even asked him to leave the religion threads alone - because he brings nothing to them - however he won't stop posting in them. I'd *much* prefer enlightened discussion - but I'm *never* going to get that - because he insists of following me in these threads.

Ignoring doesn't work - and I can't punch him - so what options do I have? I'm NOT stopping.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

If you don't like it, don't read it. That's not a lot of threads to avoid.

Pretty hard to do when you continuously and deliberately title your threads in a way that doesn't reflect the content at all.

 

[Scouse]

Pretty hard to do when you continuously and deliberately title your threads in a way that doesn't reflect the content at all.

Oh noes! Cryptic title alert!

So, once you've read the first post, realised what it is and decided not to participate, don't come back in?

What's the problem with leaving it alone Waz? Are you Toht in disguise or something?

 

[rynnor]

Pretty hard to do when you continuously and deliberately title your threads in a way that doesn't reflect the content at all.

You really hadn't heard of religious types talking about jesus in terms of good news! ? (always with the apostrophe).

 

[rynnor]

Scouse - I think a big part of your problems with Toht is that you two are both major contributors here and with most others fairly inactive comparatively a lot of conversations are going to be you 2.

 

[Job]

I spend my time shooting down conspiracy theories, but this outrage is falling nicely into the hands of those who would like to take out Iran, picturing your enemy as unstable and unreasonable is the first steps of the propaganda war.
It has to be on the cards soon, they simply will not allow them to go nuclear, now matter how bad the fallout (punun)

 

[gohan]

The main issue with you a Toht is that neither if you will back down, even when it gets to the point thet you KNOW you're wrong you won't leave it. I smell marridge in the air... just saying

 

[Scouse]

even when it gets to the point thet you KNOW you're wrong you won't leave it

Not that you'd be arsed (you be mad if you did) but you could find loads of posts on here where I say I stand corrected...

 

[gohan]

Against Toht?

 

[Scouse]

Against Toht?

No. Other people. I don't recall him ever being right

Edit: But I've conceded points to him - and spelled it out when I have...

 

[rynnor]

You really hadn't heard of religious types talking about jesus in terms of good news! ? (always with the apostrophe).

This is what I couldn't paste in earlier on my mobile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_News_(Christianity)

 

[Wij]

If someone knows that doing X most likely will cause violence and might get people killed, and still does it, isn't that atleast slightly irresponsible? Nothing about the people doing the action, nothing about freedom of speech, just that action. How do you judge it?

That issue.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht has been following me from thread to thread and is usually the first poster after any of my posts. He's been doing it for about 18 months

Actually you're not that special, i think you'll find that with my posting machine gun style i reply to near all threads first and that it doesn't matter who i post to.

I'm an equal twat when it comes to being an annoying git

 

[opticle]

Scouse - I think a big part of your problems with Toht is that you two are both major contributors here and with most others fairly inactive comparatively a lot of conversations are going to be you 2.

This.

I've not been here as long as most, but in Toht's defence, is does seem that frequently if Toht has a different opinion, rather than discussing/arguing about it (which, tbh, is the point of a discussion board), people jump on the fact he has a different opinion quite aggressively and then that becomes the focus of the thread rather than the actual debate. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the impression I get.

In defence of that, against Toht, you are quite persistent +/- stubborn But then again, who isn't here.

Anyways, apparently there are more calls for violence.. I read a news story about the number of UK dead thanks to rogue Afgan soldiers (one pretending to be wounded then murdered 2 others), not even insurgents or terrorists - saddening.

My immediate reaction is to say to pull everyone out and fuck them, let them sort themselves out, but then I realise that is (a) letting the evil people win and get what they want and (b) will probably lead to similar circumstances as 9/11 and 7/7 at some point in the future.

The world is a tricky place when you can't bitchslap people into not being horrific and ridiculous.

 

[Scouse]

I'm old enough in the tooth to know this 'outrage' across the Muslim world is 5% reality and 95% hype.

A mate serving in Afghanistan says it's kicked off *massively* there because of this. Hugely. Worst it's ever been apparently - and it's not like internet access is a big thing in Afghanistan.

The imams are instructing the islamic world to kick off - and the obedient sheep are duly obliging - worldwide.


It's a religious-led worldwide ruck, "justified" by a film the vast majority have never (and will never) see.


If that's not proof of the dangers of religion, I don't know what is.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd say it's a danger of wrong leaders, but as it is it's kind of the same thing. Fairly put?

 

[opticle]

I don't think it's Religion itself. It's just human nature.

Religion naturally attracts the crazies, the naive and the impressionable (as well as nice normal people), the crazies tend toward taking control, and the crazies tend to support eachother - the naive and the impressionable follow those who shout loudest. Unfortunately, Religion is very susceptible to being misused, when it should be there to do so much good, which is a great tragedy.

I don't think it's Religion that's the problem, it's Humanity and our lack of ability to stop or control the power that Religion gives people who aren't fit to wield it.

 

[Job]

As much as I despise the Roman Catholic church, it is the largest supplier of health care in the third world.
There are an enormous amount of followers, who actually do care about the disadvantaged regardless of them believing in sky fairies, it may be on their terms and there's always a catch, but if your kids got a life threatening disease and the only people who will help are the Church, then they're bound to get your vote.

 

[Gwadien]

As much as I despise the Roman Catholic church, it is the largest supplier of health care in the third world.
There are an enormous amount of followers, who actually do care about the disadvantaged regardless of them believing in sky fairies, it may be on their terms and there's always a catch, but if your kids got a life threatening disease and the only people who will help are the Church, then they're bound to get your vote.

Yes, but they're doing it as a part of their religion, i'd love to see how many of the donors actually would donate if they weren't pressured to, same thing applies for the Muslim day of charity, I forget what it is? Maybe a part of Eid?

 

[Raven]

As much as I despise the Roman Catholic church, it is the largest supplier of health care in the third world.
There are an enormous amount of followers, who actually do care about the disadvantaged regardless of them believing in sky fairies, it may be on their terms and there's always a catch, but if your kids got a life threatening disease and the only people who will help are the Church, then they're bound to get your vote.

Their special brand of health care can go fuck itself.

 

[Scouse]

I'd say it's a danger of wrong leaders, but as it is it's kind of the same thing. Fairly put?

Really?

Put your finger in the fire Toht. Go on, do it. No?

Whaddaya mean you're not doing what I've told you to do....?

 

[Wij]

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...antage-in-this-clash-of-cultures-8156469.html

 

[Wij]

Another great read on why compromise is wrong on religious offense.

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

 

[rynnor]

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...antage-in-this-clash-of-cultures-8156469.html

Some of this is true but not the natural conclusion - I think that eventually there will be a backlash against continual retreat from principles.

 

[DaGaffer]

Another great read on why compromise is wrong on religious offense.

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

Good article. Toht; this is all you need to know:

“compromise destroyed the compromiser and did not placate the uncompromising foe”

 

[Lamp]

Every single time I see the title of this thread, I instantly think of:

Ahem. Sorry.

As you were.

 

[old.Tohtori]

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...antage-in-this-clash-of-cultures-8156469.html

Saving money and leaving them the f*ck alone is also "plausible" while politicians spin it one way or other. There's no "this is why" in that article, it's all "this could be why".

Good article. Toht; this is all you need to know:

Heh, not quite, but nice try though.

Another great read on why compromise is wrong on religious offense.

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

First off i'd like to quote one thing that sets the writer in the correct light;

"Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law.",

Now we know there's no actual weight behind it as that's complete bullcrap. Second, he also says religion is a political tool(which i said above; it's a tool of evil if wielded by evil), and that muslims hate our policies not our freedoms. So since Scouse liked that article, guess we agree again.

Really?

Put your finger in the fire Toht. Go on, do it. No?

Whaddaya mean you're not doing what I've told you to do....?

If a commanding officer tells you to jump, you ask how high.

 

[Scouse]

If a commanding officer tells you to jump, you ask how high.

Yes. You do.

That makes you someone who'll kill someone else simply because someone else told you to - and in defence of a sky-fairy and a mysoginistic violent culture.

 

[Gwadien]

I've never quite understood Tohts PoV: For the record, are you religious, or just want to defend religion?

Because in all honestly, I'll respect your opinion more, but also question it more if you're not, but I'll understand why if you are

 

[Wij]

Re the "complete bullcrap" bit. Yes, depicting Mohammed is against Islamic law. Not ours. They are demanding that we adhere to it under the guise of not causing offense. Well if you CHOOSE to take offense when other people don't behave the same way you do then that's your problem.