How 'Bout a REAL Debate?

spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
How 'Bout a REAL Debate?

I saw where Kelly's going to debate her new book with religious talking heads. What's her idea, to impress herself rolling up big scores against pushovers?

How 'bout a REAL debate----one between RRS and NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), about sex with children?

Should be worth the price of admission! NAMBLA could make RRS do a lot of backing and filling just by making an opening statement that agrees with quotes like these from RRS luminaries.......

1. All groups of social animals develop sets of rules (a morality)

2. Different societies in different times and places have had different opinions about sex with kids.

3. There is no absolute right and wrong.

Then, NAMBLA can just say, "RRS also tells us not to let anyone else do our thinking for us. So we took their advice and thought for ourself, and just like lots of other people in lots of other places and times, we decided it's OK to have sex with kids. So, RRS, don't shove your narrow, intolerant "morality" down other peoples throats."

 Don't know what RRS will say then, but y'all better improve on Kelly's "I say I'm right about sex with kids because I am. Prove me wrong."  (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-116027)
 

_________________________

Never trust a machine gun toting, yowling alleycat that says he wants to eradicate anything "peacefully".


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:How 'bout a

spirale2 wrote:
How 'bout a REAL debate----one between RRS and NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), about sex with children?

Wow, that sounds gross. Thanks for that.

spirale2 wrote:
1. All groups of social animals develop sets of rules (a morality)

True.

spirale2 wrote:
2. Different societies in different times and places have had different opinions about sex with kids.

Also true.

spirale2 wrote:
3. There is no absolute right and wrong.

Yup.

spirale2 wrote:
Then, NAMBLA can just say, "RRS also tells us not to let anyone else do our thinking for us. So we took their advice and thought for ourself, and just like lots of other people in lots of other places and times, we decided it's OK to have sex with kids. So, RRS, don't shove your narrow, intolerant "morality" down other peoples throats."

Wait, what? In simple terms, we as a society (in Western cultures, at least) have decided to drop the ancient Greek approach to pederasty as counter-productive, and in many senses abusive. That's a pretty rational way of arriving at an ethical stance. You don't need an absolute morality for that. It's pragmatic and healthy.

So what was your problem?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:I saw where

spirale2 wrote:

I saw where Kelly's going to debate her new book with religious talking heads. What's her idea, to impress herself rolling up big scores against pushovers?

How 'bout a REAL debate----one between RRS and NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA), about sex with children?

1: Doesn't sound like a challenge.

2: Giving those freaks any excuse for air time of any kind sounds like a bad idea to me. Sic the power of Annoymous on them.

3: How can you have a debate with a group when their members keep getting arrested before it's their time to speak? Auto-win = cheap win.

spirale2 wrote:
Should be worth the price of admission!

If people were smart, they'd demand nambla pay them to watch it.

spirale2 wrote:
NAMBLA could make RRS do a lot of backing and filling just by making an opening statement that agrees with quotes like these from RRS luminaries.......

1. All groups of social animals develop sets of rules (a morality)

2. Different societies in different times and places have had different opinions about sex with kids.

3. There is no absolute right and wrong.

There's nothing here to cause concern. The non-existance of absolute right and wrong does not preclude the subjective right and wrong that humans everywhere have loosly agreed upon and written into law. IE: No god does not mean you are allowed to do what you want to whoever you want; society itself is the final authority, not a god. Neither does the activities of another culture or species mean a practice is good in your own.

They'd be instantly up shit creek if they tried any of those roads.

spirale2 wrote:

Then, NAMBLA can just say, "RRS also tells us not to let anyone else do our thinking for us. So we took their advice and thought for ourself, and just like lots of other people in lots of other places and times, we decided it's OK to have sex with kids. So, RRS, don't shove your narrow, intolerant "morality" down other peoples throats."

Too bad for them that the final authority on the law says you can't do it, and that final authority isn't a god. So instead of kids, they'll have fun sharing themselves with Bubba on block E.

 

spirale2 wrote:
Don't know what RRS will say then, but y'all better improve on Kelly's "I say I'm right about sex with kids because I am. Prove me wrong."  (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-116027)
 

_________________________

Never trust a machine gun toting, yowling alleycat that says he wants to eradicate anything "peacefully".

This is just sad and pathetic, and doesn't deserve a response. It's nothing more than an ad hominem. Directed at perhaps two individuals. Neither of whom are me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The age of consent varies

The age of consent varies massively in the 1st world never mind the 3rd world in fact according to wikipedia it seems to vary a lot in the US state by state so its hardly an  moral absolute.

Good diagram of how it varies around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png

Also the punishment for breaking it also varies which makes the effective age of prosecution even more variable. Age of consent in the UK is 16 but no one is going to prosecute a 15 year old having sex with someone a similar age while I suspect in the US they would get 10 years etc.

Using the age of consent as proof of the existance of god makes about as much sense as hurriances are caused by being gay

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
mrjonno wrote:Using the age

mrjonno wrote:

Using the age of consent as proof of the existance of god makes about as much sense as hurriances are caused by being gay

What? I thought the price of gay was hurricanes! Am I wrong? Pretty sure the negotiations went like this:

God: Look, if you're going to have gay, I'm going to have to give you hurricanes, too. They're inseparable. No hurricanes, no gay.

Man: But then who will form the backbone of the entertainment industry? Okay, fine, we'll take hurricanes.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Why is Canada coloured green

Why is Canada coloured green on that map?  It should be blue!  BLUE DAMNIT!  (Age of consent is 14.)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Why is Canada

Thomathy wrote:
Why is Canada coloured green on that map?  It should be blue!  BLUE DAMNIT!  (Age of consent is 14.)

 

Well, if I had to guess, that would be because the legal age in Canada appears to have been raised like a year ago:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Thomathy wrote:
Why is Canada coloured green on that map?  It should be blue!  BLUE DAMNIT!  (Age of consent is 14.)

 

Well, if I had to guess, that would be because the legal age in Canada appears to have been raised like a year ago:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html

Actually, it's not been raised... far as I can tell.  And I trust the Library of Parliament website more than CBC's reporting.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2333570&Language=e&Mode=1

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&query=4316&Session=22&List=aka&query_2=3889#3889

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&query=4316&Session=22&List=aka&query_2=3243

It doesn't seem that the bill has come into force.  It appears that the legislation in the first link is still the most recent.  It is even linked to directly from other pages concerning age of consent within the Parliamentary Library website, even those citing bills wherein the age of consent is amended to 16.  Oddly, however, neither Bill C-267 nor Bill C-306 is mentioned in that page, perhaps because it has not been revised since 2001.  Still, I can't find a resource within the Library which definitively states that any bill has been ascended such that it ammends the legislation on the age of consent page.

Edit: Also, searches in the website for the Tackling Violent Crimes Act (which contained the 'proposed' amendment to age of consent) don't turn up any good information on that act or its force.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
No worries dude. I

No worries dude. I certainly do not claim to be a scholar of Canadian law. In fact, I find the whole subject to be quite confusing as it often just does not work anything like our laws do. Then too, I suspect that our laws are probably equally confusing form the other side of the fence as well.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In a general sense, this

In a general sense, this subject hasn't interested me for a good 16 years. I do however remember some political rumblings about it within the last couple of years. So I did a quick peek at the criminal code, and confirmed that it the age of consent is 16 in Canada, with exceptions to the rule. As per:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1//en#anchorbo-ga:l_V-gb:s_150_1

 

 

PART V

SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Interpretation

Definitions

150. In this Part,

"guardian"
«tuteur »

"guardian" includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of another person;

"public place"
«endroit public »

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"theatre"
«théâtre »

"theatre" includes any place that is open to the public where entertainments are given, whether or not any charge is made for admission.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 138.

Sexual Offences

Consent no defence

150.1 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (2.2), when an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of 16 years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge.

Exception — complainant aged 12 or 13

(2) When an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is 12 years of age or more but under the age of 14 years, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if the accused

(a) is less than two years older than the complainant; and

(b) is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant.

Exception — complainant aged 14 or 15

(2.1) When an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16 years, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if

(a) the accused

(i) is less than five years older than the complainant; and

(ii) is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant; or

 

(b) the accused is married to the complainant.

Exception for transitional purposes

(2.2) When the accused referred to in subsection (2.1) is five or more years older than the complainant, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge if, on the day on which this subsection comes into force,

(a) the accused is the common-law partner of the complainant, or has been cohabiting with the complainant in a conjugal relationship for a period of less than one year and they have had or are expecting to have a child as a result of the relationship; and

(b) the accused is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You know what I love the

 You know what I love the most about challenges for "real debates" between atheists and theists?  Nine out of ten of them end with one sentence from the atheist, usually in the form of:

"Ok.  Prove X."

Debate over.

In this case, it's a little more complicated, but not much:

"Yeah.  We used rationality to change something that had empirically bad effects.  What's the problem?"

End of Debate.

Anyway, it just helps to illustrate something that most atheists know already -- there simply is no debate between theism and atheism.  The debate was won a long time ago, and like those rednecks with the confederate flags on their trucks, there are some people who just haven't gotten the memo.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:mrjonno

HisWillness wrote:

mrjonno wrote:

Using the age of consent as proof of the existance of god makes about as much sense as hurriances are caused by being gay

What? I thought the price of gay was hurricanes! Am I wrong? Pretty sure the negotiations went like this:

God: Look, if you're going to have gay, I'm going to have to give you hurricanes, too. They're inseparable. No hurricanes, no gay.

Man: But then who will form the backbone of the entertainment industry? Okay, fine, we'll take hurricanes.

And Man totally got the better end of that deal. I mean, hurricanes really only do MAJOR damage to maybe four or five of the 50 states. And we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Ellen Degeneres and Barney Frank. Man FTW.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote:HisWillness

geirj wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

What? I thought the price of gay was hurricanes! Am I wrong? Pretty sure the negotiations went like this:

God: Look, if you're going to have gay, I'm going to have to give you hurricanes, too. They're inseparable. No hurricanes, no gay.

Man: But then who will form the backbone of the entertainment industry? Okay, fine, we'll take hurricanes.

And Man totally got the better end of that deal. I mean, hurricanes really only do MAJOR damage to maybe four or five of the 50 states. And we got Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Ellen Degeneres and Barney Frank. Man FTW.

Aw. It was just a joke. Are you not feeling well today?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:The debate

Hambydammit wrote:

The debate was won a long time ago

 

Yup, and that's the irony. Hardly any theist actually listens or learns from the debate. A lot of them just keep twisting and miscontruing everything, going down strange pathways of circular logic.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for making my point, y'all!

Thanks for making my point! It was fun reading what y'all said about the law being the final authority, and making absolute judgments like saying sex with children is "gross", and that NAMBLA a bunch of "freaks", when Kelly herself had said

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607
 

What makes Kelly a Hall of Famer, instead of just a run of the mill Schizophrenic Atheist  like most of you, (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998) is that she threw that quote in someone's face to make them seem ignorant, then said later that her own opinion about sex with children is "right".

 By the way, I was real impressed by the person who thought I was saying that "age of consent" is evidence for the existence of god. Also by everyone who just jumped in and assumed I'm a theist.  Shows what  kind of illogic y'all can get away with here.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:Thanks for

spirale2 wrote:
Thanks for making my point! It was fun reading what y'all said about the law being the final authority, and making absolute judgments like saying sex with children is "gross", and that NAMBLA a bunch of "freaks", when Kelly herself had said

You may have missed a memo. We don't all agree with Kelly just because.

Kelly wrote:
You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.

But that's true, historically speaking, so I don't see your problem with it.

spirale2 wrote:
What makes Kelly a Hall of Famer, instead of just a run of the mill Schizophrenic Atheist  like most of you, (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998) is that she threw that quote in someone's face to make them seem ignorant, then said later that her own opinion about sex with children is "right".

I think you've confused "a norm" with "normative". And you're probably not qualified to diagnose anyone here.

spirale2 wrote:
By the way, I was real impressed by the person who thought I was saying that "age of consent" is evidence for the existence of god. Also by everyone who just jumped in and assumed I'm a theist.  Shows what  kind of illogic y'all can get away with here.

Are you okay? (Here I was worried about gerj!) You seem deeply irate about something. Usually when people claim there's an absolute authority above the law, they mean a god of some sort. We're used to being attacked with that idea from theists very frequently.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:Thanks for

spirale2 wrote:

Thanks for making my point! It was fun reading what y'all said about the law being the final authority, and making absolute judgments like saying sex with children is "gross", and that NAMBLA a bunch of "freaks", when Kelly herself had said

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion. That is why it is a "norm"--it is relevant to cultures and therefore also time periods.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607
 

What makes Kelly a Hall of Famer, instead of just a run of the mill Schizophrenic Atheist  like most of you, (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998) is that she threw that quote in someone's face to make them seem ignorant, then said later that her own opinion about sex with children is "right".

 By the way, I was real impressed by the person who thought I was saying that "age of consent" is evidence for the existence of god. Also by everyone who just jumped in and assumed I'm a theist.  Shows what  kind of illogic y'all can get away with here.

 

Epic fail. I already obliterated you once. I'm not going to do it again, since the first time still stands. You failed to answer or refute a single thing I said. You suck.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
How 'Bout Another Beer?

It’s hilarious-----RRS knows good and well  that lots of atheists and agnostics say y’all are hostile, shallow-thinking extremists, but you smear as a “theist” anybody who says it here in your forums. Good example of the “logic” schizophrenic atheists [http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998] let each other get away with.

One example of how y’all are shallow-thinking embarrassments---you use emotional arguments whenever the theists let you get away with it. The theist talking heads may be too stupid to catch on, but y’all are masters of double talk and double standards. Your posts on this thread are a good example.

The facts are

  • When the fundies try to shove THEIR moral judgments down our throats, RRS tells us not to let the other social animals in the herd (aka “other people) do our thinking for us.
  • NAMBLA thought for itself and decided it’s OK to have sex with kids.
  • To RRS members, that makes NAMBLA members “freaks”, and what they do is “gross”. (I know only a few of you made posts that actually got that ignorant about it, but the rest of y’all seemed just fine with it, too.)
  • Lots of y’all also says NAMBLA can’t have sex with kids because the other social animals in our herd (meaning our  culture and laws) say it’s wrong, even though lots of other cultures have said it’s OK. We have Kelly’s own word on it:

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion.   

(http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607).


Most atheists and agnostics would fess up by now and say something like “OK—ya caught us using double standards and emotional reasoning. How ‘bout another beer?” But I gotta remember y'all are the sort of atheists who make a Core Member, Author and High Level Moderator out of a guy in his mid thirties who’s still putting little drawings of machinegun toting tomcats alongside his posts. I guess the rest of you y’all gotta decide for yourself if you want to end up that way too.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:It’s

spirale2 wrote:

It’s hilarious-----RRS knows good and well  that lots of atheists and agnostics say y’all are hostile, shallow-thinking extremists, but you smear as a “theist” anybody who says it here in your forums. Good example of the “logic” schizophrenic atheists [http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998] let each other get away with.

One example of how y’all are shallow-thinking embarrassments---you use emotional arguments whenever the theists let you get away with it. The theist talking heads may be too stupid to catch on, but y’all are masters of double talk and double standards. Your posts on this thread are a good example.

The facts are

  • When the fundies try to shove THEIR moral judgments down our throats, RRS tells us not to let the other social animals in the herd (aka “other people) do our thinking for us.
  • NAMBLA thought for itself and decided it’s OK to have sex with kids.
  • To RRS members, that makes NAMBLA members “freaks”, and what they do is “gross”. (I know only a few of you made posts that actually got that ignorant about it, but the rest of y’all seemed just fine with it, too.)
  • Lots of y’all also says NAMBLA can’t have sex with kids because the other social animals in our herd (meaning our  culture and laws) say it’s wrong, even though lots of other cultures have said it’s OK. We have Kelly’s own word on it:

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion.   

(http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607).


Most atheists and agnostics would fess up by now and say something like “OK—ya caught us using double standards and emotional reasoning. How ‘bout another beer?” But I gotta remember y'all are the sort of atheists who make a Core Member, Author and High Level Moderator out of a guy in his mid thirties who’s still putting little drawings of machinegun toting tomcats alongside his posts. I guess the rest of you y’all gotta decide for yourself if you want to end up that way too.

And now you start owning yourself. Thanks, saves me the effort.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:One example

spirale2 wrote:

One example of how y’all are shallow-thinking embarrassments---you use emotional arguments whenever the theists let you get away with it. The theist talking heads may be too stupid to catch on, but y’all are masters of double talk and double standards. Your posts on this thread are a good example.

So you're just going to talk to yourself from now on? Is that how this works for you?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
More Reading Troubles, Tomcat?

The Toomygun Toting Tomcat said, 

You know what I love the most about challenges for "real debates" between atheists and theists?  

Whatsamatter, Tomcat? Having trouble reading again?  I said a debate between RRS and NAMBLA, not a debate between RRS and theists.  Don't see where beating the theists means you'll come out on top when NAMBLA uses your own logic against y'all.

And oh yes, about your quote

...like those rednecks with the confederate flags on their trucks...

Y'all wouldn't be so ignorant as to be a little prejudiced against poor white southerners now, would ya? (And y'all at RRS call him a core member of the RATIONAL response squad...tsk, tsk, tsk)

These are just a few more reasons why I send people here to make my point that whatever our philosophical differences are, we don't want to go getting like RRS and the fundies over them.

 

 


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Another Remedial Reading Student

Hey there, Gaming God!

You said

You failed to answer or refute a single thing I said. You suck.

When I've talked about ignorant people who called NAMBLA "freaks", who'd ya think I meant?

 

Comic fail!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The only people I have run

The only people I have run into who try to equate atheists to sickos like NAMBLA are theists.  Does anyone else here smell a poser, or is it just me?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:spirale2

Vastet wrote:

spirale2 wrote:

It’s hilarious-----RRS knows good and well  that lots of atheists and agnostics say y’all are hostile, shallow-thinking extremists, but you smear as a “theist” anybody who says it here in your forums. Good example of the “logic” schizophrenic atheists [http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15998] let each other get away with.

One example of how y’all are shallow-thinking embarrassments---you use emotional arguments whenever the theists let you get away with it. The theist talking heads may be too stupid to catch on, but y’all are masters of double talk and double standards. Your posts on this thread are a good example.

The facts are

  • When the fundies try to shove THEIR moral judgments down our throats, RRS tells us not to let the other social animals in the herd (aka “other people) do our thinking for us.
  • NAMBLA thought for itself and decided it’s OK to have sex with kids.
  • To RRS members, that makes NAMBLA members “freaks”, and what they do is “gross”. (I know only a few of you made posts that actually got that ignorant about it, but the rest of y’all seemed just fine with it, too.)
  • Lots of y’all also says NAMBLA can’t have sex with kids because the other social animals in our herd (meaning our  culture and laws) say it’s wrong, even though lots of other cultures have said it’s OK. We have Kelly’s own word on it:

You may be shocked to know that sex between older men and much younger men, often students, has only relatively recently fallen out of fashion.   

(http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/10614#comment-114607).


Most atheists and agnostics would fess up by now and say something like “OK—ya caught us using double standards and emotional reasoning. How ‘bout another beer?” But I gotta remember y'all are the sort of atheists who make a Core Member, Author and High Level Moderator out of a guy in his mid thirties who’s still putting little drawings of machinegun toting tomcats alongside his posts. I guess the rest of you y’all gotta decide for yourself if you want to end up that way too.

And now you start owning yourself. Thanks, saves me the effort.

I love it when people come in here and shoot off there mouth without knowing a damned thing about this site or it's members or it's logos.

IF the OP knew the history of the KITTEN and why it was used, they would KNOW that it is making fun of fundamentalism  of any kind. The KITTEN is to poke fun at religion's claim of "peace"(kitten)vs the reality of the violence and club mentality(machine gun,"religion&quotEye-wink in it's REAL game of capture the flag over the world.

(BUT I AM SURE THE OP KNEW THAT)

To the OP:

 

1. Debate and blasphemy does not make us "fundies", it makes us honest with others and ourselves.

2. THIS SITE HAS NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, MUCH LESS THE OPRESSION OF THEISTS VIA GOVERNMENT FORCE.

Read, re-read, untill it soaks in. But do not come in here spewing bullshit about people you don't know.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well said Brian.spirale2

Well said Brian.

spirale2 wrote:

Hey there, Gaming God!

You said

You failed to answer or refute a single thing I said. You suck.

When I've talked about ignorant people who called NAMBLA "freaks", who'd ya think I meant?

 

Comic fail!

When I ripped apart your post, how did you miss it?

Epic fail!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


spirale2
Posts: 22
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, I Think You Oughta Have Said

Vastet, I think you oughta have said,

"When I (vastet) completely misread your (spirale2's) post, and responded with nonsequiters and hysterical emotionalism, like calling NAMBLA members 'freaks' when I (vastet) know good and well  their behavior was considered acceptable until fairly recently (according to Kelly herself)".

If you think posts like yours demand a detailed response, then most of your acquaintances probably think you're a hostile whacko (though they'd know better than to tell you that to your face!)

Vastet, to judge from the picture you put alonside your posts, you must have been through some pretty bad stuff. That picture is pure pathos, and I sympathize with you. But you choose to stay in this group of Rarely Rational Scribblers, picking your old scabs with them and just staying angry. Rational, peaceful, mature atheists get out of groups like RRS because that sort of atheist sees that RRS is just a road to destruction.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:Vastet, I

spirale2 wrote:

Vastet, I think you oughta have said,

"When I (vastet) completely misread your (spirale2's) post, and responded with nonsequiters and hysterical emotionalism, like calling NAMBLA members 'freaks' when I (vastet) know good and well  their behavior was considered acceptable until fairly recently (according to Kelly herself)".

If you think posts like yours demand a detailed response, then most of your acquaintances probably think you're a hostile whacko (though they'd know better than to tell you that to your face!)

Vastet, to judge from the picture you put alonside your posts, you must have been through some pretty bad stuff. That picture is pure pathos, and I sympathize with you. But you choose to stay in this group of Rarely Rational Scribblers, picking your old scabs with them and just staying angry. Rational, peaceful, mature atheists get out of groups like RRS because that sort of atheist sees that RRS is just a road to destruction.

spirale2 wrote:

Vastet, I think you oughta have said,

"When I (vastet) completely misread your (spirale2's) post, and responded with nonsequiters and hysterical emotionalism, like calling NAMBLA members 'freaks' when I (vastet) know good and well  their behavior was considered acceptable until fairly recently (according to Kelly herself)".

If you think posts like yours demand a detailed response, then most of your acquaintances probably think you're a hostile whacko (though they'd know better than to tell you that to your face!)

Vastet, to judge from the picture you put alonside your posts, you must have been through some pretty bad stuff. That picture is pure pathos, and I sympathize with you. But you choose to stay in this group of Rarely Rational Scribblers, picking your old scabs with them and just staying angry. Rational, peaceful, mature atheists get out of groups like RRS because that sort of atheist sees that RRS is just a road to destruction.

Who do you think you take us for? You came here to discredit RRS. If anyone deserves rewards points for "non-sequitors" you'd make Donald Trump look like a street bum.

NOW, despense with the fallacious smere campain which no one is fooled by, and state your intent of being at this site in clear concise unambiguous terms.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
spirale2 wrote:Vastet, I

spirale2 wrote:

Vastet, I think you oughta have said,

What you think is irrelevant.

spirale2 wrote:

"When I (vastet) completely misread your (spirale2's) post, and responded with nonsequiters and hysterical emotionalism, like calling NAMBLA members 'freaks' when I (vastet) know good and well  their behavior was considered acceptable until fairly recently (according to Kelly herself)".

You are really good at making a complete ass of yourself and also at making things up. I wonder if you're a politician. 

spirale2 wrote:

If you think posts like yours demand a detailed response, then most of your acquaintances probably think you're a hostile whacko (though they'd know better than to tell you that to your face!)

Some more projection here.

spirale2 wrote:

Vastet, to judge from the picture you put alonside your posts, you must have been through some pretty bad stuff.

So you're not a gamer.

spirale2 wrote:
 That picture is pure pathos, and I sympathize with you.

And you don't know the context either. I suggest picking up Final Fantasy VIII. It's a good game. A bit old, but still good.

spirale2 wrote:
 But you choose to stay in this group of Rarely Rational Scribblers,

You probably think yourself witty with remarks like this, sadly they merely demonstrate the opposite: That you can only attack by attacking, you have no substance to attack with.

spirale2 wrote:
 picking your old scabs with them and just staying angry. Rational, peaceful, mature atheists get out of groups like RRS because that sort of atheist sees that RRS is just a road to destruction.

And so you had nothing with substance to present today. Oh well, maybe tomorrow.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Yall? Really? Is this

Yall? Really?

 

Is this considered english where you are?

 

 

 

Pathetic. Go back to your trailer and watch Nascar and Fox News.



That's an order.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
NAMBLA...LMMFAO!

NAMBLA...LMMFAO!