Is Dawkinsnet a cult?

TC436
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Is Dawkinsnet a cult?

I was a member of Richarddawkinsnet but after questioning what i saw to be cult like behaviour on that site, i was promptly banned.

After reading a post on there http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=76361&hilit=ignore+rational+response+squad
about RSS (this site) quote:  "There's an ample amount of evidence on the web the shows the Kellym from the RRS is now a prostitute going by the name Kasey Grant and doing porn."

I decided that if they hate RSS that much so as to resort to personal attacks, I might be better suited to this site.

At this point I will ask the question, what do you think of possible personality cultism around Dawkins?

However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

Also WHY does Dawkins net hate RSS? On the surface they both appear to be about the same things. Is this problem coming from RSS or RDN?

Lastly I want to warn you that while I am an atheist, I am also a nihilist. I will endeavour to follow forum rules, but I will be outspoken about ANYTHING I choose. This thread I have started here is to give you an example of how I confront subjects. If I see examples of irrationalism coming from anyone I will often point it out. I also dont believe in strong militant atheism, to me, it is irrational to force anyone to be rational. Atheism should come from a personal discovery, aided but not forced by others. 

Like satan said to his son in the movie Constantine when his son tried to take the earth by force: "this world will be mine, in time" Thats my personal view on atheism. Religion will fade, faith will be replaced by rationalism, and if we try to force it we will end up with a state like north korea, if we let it come naturally we will have utopia.

 If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

 

 

Its damn hard shutting up a fool.


alfred whitehurst (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, first I'd say

that any individual post - even a series of posts by several members/guests - is hardly solid evidence of 'cult like' behavior.  Certainly, they may be evidence enough for an individual to decide they don't belong there, or that their posts may not be welcome.

Additionally, posting such things as you've suggested - even if true - could hardly be considered to be appropiate topics for public discussion.  Taking that to the next level, I myself would say....so what?

Although I doubt any of these rumors (first I've heard of them) are true, even if by a long stretch they are true - it has no bearing on the workings or mission of RSS.  If someone wants to act in porn movies, (and they understand the variety of risks, personal and professional) - big deal.  I have no problem with it (and no, I do not watch porn).

Personal decision.  They take responsibility for themselves, I take responsibility for myself, etc.

As to whether or not an entire organization can be said to be engaged in 'cult like' behavior, based on the evidence of a few (or even many) posts - I do believe that's insufficent evidence.  People are entitled to their opinions, of course - if I'm applying that to Fundamentalists, I also have no problem applying the same 'golden rule' to those who, from some misguided sense of loyalty or entertainment, wish to put people up on a pedestal.

Being well liked - even loved - appreciated and respected - is a far cry from being the center of a cult.

Just my own views, of course Smiling

AMW

TC436 wrote:

I was a member of Richarddawkinsnet but after questioning what i saw to be cult like behaviour on that site, i was promptly banned.

After reading a post on there http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=76361&hilit=ignore+rational+response+squad
about RSS (this site) quote:  "There's an ample amount of evidence on the web the shows the Kellym from the RRS is now a prostitute going by the name Kasey Grant and doing porn."

I decided that if they hate RSS that much so as to resort to personal attacks, I might be better suited to this site.

At this point I will ask the question, what do you think of possible personality cultism around Dawkins?

However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

Also WHY does Dawkins net hate RSS? On the surface they both appear to be about the same things. Is this problem coming from RSS or RDN?

Lastly I want to warn you that while I am an atheist, I am also a nihilist. I will endeavour to follow forum rules, but I will be outspoken about ANYTHING I choose. This thread I have started here is to give you an example of how I confront subjects. If I see examples of irrationalism coming from anyone I will often point it out. I also dont believe in strong militant atheism, to me, it is irrational to force anyone to be rational. Atheism should come from a personal discovery, aided but not forced by others. 

Like satan said to his son in the movie Constantine when his son tried to take the earth by force: "this world will be mine, in time" Thats my personal view on atheism. Religion will fade, faith will be replaced by rationalism, and if we try to force it we will end up with a state like north korea, if we let it come naturally we will have utopia.

 If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:After reading a post

 

Quote:
After reading a post on there http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=76361&hilit=ignore+rational+response+squad

about RSS (this site) quote:  "There's an ample amount of evidence on the web the shows the Kellym from the RRS is now a prostitute going by the name Kasey Grant and doing porn."

I decided that if they hate RSS that much so as to resort to personal attacks, I might be better suited to this site.

Some sites like talking about people.  Here, we talk about religion, atheism, and science.

Quote:
At this point I will ask the question, what do you think of possible personality cultism around Dawkins?

Meh.  Last I checked, he hasn't asked anyone to drink any Kool-Aid.  I've met the man twice, read almost everything he's written, and consider myself a fan.  I'm sure there are lots of people who have done the same things.  That's because he's a public figure and a very brilliant writer and scientist.  He's bound to have lots of fans.  If someone else wants to call that cultish, it's their prerogative, but it just sounds like he's popular to me.

Quote:
However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

Brian Sapient is the founder of Rational Response Squad.  He's not very active these days for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with much of anything.  Like Dawkins, he's got his fans and his detractors.  It comes with the territory.

Quote:
Also WHY does Dawkins net hate RSS?

psst.... RRS.  RSS is a newsfeed thingy.

Anyway, search me.  I don't know of any members here who have an axe to grind.  In any case, it is against our forum rules to shit talk other atheist websites, so your guess is as good as mine.

Quote:
On the surface they both appear to be about the same things. Is this problem coming from RSS or RDN?

Again, I can only speak for RRS.  We do not allow flame wars or internet drama about other websites.  If any particular members of RRS have a problem with RDN, it's their issue, and they can deal with it somewhere other than here.

Quote:
 Lastly I want to warn you that while I am an atheist, I am also a nihilist. I will endeavour to follow forum rules, but I will be outspoken about ANYTHING I choose.

It is against our forum rules to shit talk other atheist websites.  It is also against the rules to antagonize or otherwise harrass other posters.  It is against the rules to spam threads, hijack, and continually repeat yourself while not addressing criticisms leveled at your position.  In other words, you must play nice.  If you cannot abide by the forum rules, you will be banned from here, too.

Having said that, any topic that is legitimately involved with atheism, religion, science, and the other topics denoted in our various forums is fair game, and we have no policy regarding your level of outspokenness.  Just be careful not to confuse outspokenness with stubborn refusal to engage in civilized discussion.

Quote:
This thread I have started here is to give you an example of how I confront subjects. If I see examples of irrationalism coming from anyone I will often point it out. I also dont believe in strong militant atheism, to me, it is irrational to force anyone to be rational. Atheism should come from a personal discovery, aided but not forced by others. 

Like satan said to his son in the movie Constantine when his son tried to take the earth by force: "this world will be mine, in time" Thats my personal view on atheism. Religion will fade, faith will be replaced by rationalism, and if we try to force it we will end up with a state like north korea, if we let it come naturally we will have utopia.

Many of us here disagree with your views.  It is not terribly likely that you've got new material, so I wouldn't expect your thoughts to change many minds.  If you're ok with that, we're ok with it.  We have several long-time posters who hold positions directly opposed to the majority opinions, and what they all have in common is that they are all civil in their disagreement.  Please take a lesson early.

Quote:
 If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

If there is ever a problem, it will be because of attitude, not content.  We do not censor any subject except as mentioned earlier.  If you're respectful of others, even when you disagree vehemently, you'll do fine here.

 

 

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

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


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
TC436 wrote:However I dont

TC436 wrote:

However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

I'll let others answer your other questions, but that is just false.

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Oh... one other thing.

 Oh... one other thing.  The private lives of any and all members of this website are off limits as conversation topics unless and until the person in question brings it up first.  Be warned.

 

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

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


TC436
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Oh...

Hambydammit wrote:

 Oh... one other thing.  The private lives of any and all members of this website are off limits as conversation topics unless and until the person in question brings it up first.  Be warned.

 

 

I have always failed to see how the private lives of any individual has any bearing on any of their arguments. It can establish motive, but it can neither make their logic true or false. If someone in arguing against anothers logic, and includes a personal attack on them, I generally stop listening.

 

 

Its damn hard shutting up a fool.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I have always failed

 

Quote:
I have always failed to see how the private lives of any individual has any bearing on any of their arguments. It can establish motive, but it can neither make their logic true or false. If someone in arguing against anothers logic, and includes a personal attack on them, I generally stop listening.

I suspect you'll be fine here, then.  Welcome.

 

 

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

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


Diagoras23
atheist
Diagoras23's picture
Posts: 77
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Welcome TC436

Hey there TC436 Welcome to the hip niche RRS.

Relations between Big Dicky Dawkins and the RRS are good to non-existant, as I understand. I have seen him on an RRS web broadcast and it was a meeting of like minds with different tactics.

I am no official member or representative for the RRS.

If you study the various well accepted definitions of a cult you will see it is a term that can be applied quite easily. In its purest sense there is nothing wrong or bad about a cult. Cults don't kill people, people kill people. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

I could see the RRS easily defined as a cult, as I could see Big Dicky being defined as being involved in a cult of personality, BUT, perspective is important here as is an understanding of a layman's negative perception of what a cult is, as opposed to the actual, quite boring and very broadly inclusive written definitions for cult. A tennis club is a cult too by some definitions.

Being the intellectual I could see the Dawkarama Mister define the RRS and many other "web communities" (may be the wrong term) as cults. His understanding of the definition of a cult would probably be so well defined you could shave with it. I don't think he would have been malicious about this statement if he made it at all, maybe a little patronizing with regard to what is the best approach for advancing the atheist / agnostic / deist / etc case.

Us RRS people are kind of child like in our arguements compared to Riccardo Dawkanesta but I will only speak for myself in that respect. We do a different job.

Shouldn't assign comments made by anyone on Dick Dawk Net as being the opinion of the man himself or a large group as a whole.

Chillaxe, everything is peachy. (What am I? On acid?)

Oh and regarding your last comment, I agree, a failing argument relies on personal insult. You bastard. Jokes.

I really hope you are up front here and not meeting an inflamatory agenda. I don't think you will get many bites here anyway.

Welcome to the site, now go and find a topic with a confused theist and bring them around.

 

Who would want to finish what they have said with the same thing everytime?


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
TC436 wrote:However I dont

TC436 wrote:

However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

If the RRS is a cult they're doing an awful job at it. They don't (and in most cases can't) follow the typical cult like behaviors, i.e. isolation, censorship, sleep deprivation, forced drug use. Even if they were a cult, who would be the leader? I've seen Sapient post here a maximum of 20 times since I joined (not including posts regarding Matt). Hardly the presence you would expect from a cult leader.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.TC436

Welcome to the forum.

TC436 wrote:

If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

I hope we can deliver.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
TC436 wrote: At this point

TC436 wrote:

 

At this point I will ask the question, what do you think of possible personality cultism around Dawkins?

Dawkins told us this is not possible, we must believe his words.

TC436 wrote:

However I dont want to trade one cult for another, Dawkinsnet claims that RSS is a cult based around someone called "sapient". Is this true or just a false attack?

The sapient has spoken and said this is definetly false.

TC436 wrote:
Also WHY does Dawkins net hate RSS? On the surface they both appear to be about the same things. Is this problem coming from RSS or RDN?

They're a bunch of closet thiests.

TC436 wrote:

Lastly I want to warn you that while I am an atheist, I am also a nihilist. I will endeavour to follow forum rules, but I will be outspoken about ANYTHING I choose.

If being an outspoken nihilist brings meaning to your life, then by all means express this view.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:If the

spike.barnett wrote:

If the RRS is a cult they're doing an awful job at it. They don't (and in most cases can't) follow the typical cult like behaviors, i.e. isolation, censorship, sleep deprivation, forced drug use.

 

Eh, 2 outa 4 aint bad...

What Would Kharn Do?


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
BRIAN: Are you the RSS

BRIAN: Are you the RSS atheists?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: RRS! We're the RRS. Not the fucking RSS.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: Listen, I may not sound it but I'm really a nihilist you know. I hate the theists as much as anybody. I hate everybody! Well, not my mum, but nearly everybody!

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate all god-people already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the RRS., you'd have to really hate theists.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than theists are the fucking DawkinsNet wankers.

RRS: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

RRS: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the DawkinsResponse Squad wankers.

RRS: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the Rational Response Squad.

RRS: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The Rational Response Squad. Splitters.

REG: We're the Rational Response Squad!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Really Sapient Syndication.

REG: Really Fucking Retarded more like! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Retard, Reg?

REG: He's over there. He doesn't post much these days for various reasons.

RRS.: Splitter!

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:BRIAN: Are

Nordmann wrote:

BRIAN: Are you the RSS atheists?

REG: Fuck off!

BRIAN: What?

REG: RRS! We're the RRS. Not the fucking RSS.

FRANCIS: Wankers.

BRIAN: Can I... join your group?

REG: No. Piss off.

BRIAN: Listen, I may not sound it but I'm really a nihilist you know. I hate the theists as much as anybody. I hate everybody! Well, not my mum, but nearly everybody!

JUDITH: Are you sure?

BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate all god-people already.

REG: Listen. If you wanted to join the RRS., you'd have to really hate theists.

BRIAN: I do!

REG: Oh, yeah? How much?

BRIAN: A lot!

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than theists are the fucking DawkinsNet wankers.

RRS: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

RRS: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the DawkinsResponse Squad wankers.

RRS: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the Rational Response Squad.

RRS: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The Rational Response Squad. Splitters.

REG: We're the Rational Response Squad!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Really Sapient Syndication.

REG: Really Fucking Retarded more like! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Retard, Reg?

REG: He's over there. He doesn't post much these days for various reasons.

RRS.: Splitter!

Hilarious nod to Life of Brain Smiling


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
No, RD.net is not a 'cult'.

No, RD.net is not a 'cult'. People like to toss around that word willie-nillie sometimes; it means something specific:

Cults are centrally structured, actively recruiting organizations that enforce strict dogmas, demand members conform to one specific framing of the world and expect unwavering faith/dedication to their leadership at all times. Cults very seldom ever kick members out, either (even brand new members), though some will maintain a zeitgeist where being removed from the cult is (fecetiously) hung over everyone's head as a 'threat' in order to further consolidate the leader's hold on everyone.

f you want to accuse an organization (like, say, RD.net) of being a 'cult', you'll need to be prepared to offer:

 - Who the cult's leaders are

 - What methods they use to recruit members

 - What doctrines they adhere to

 - What worldview they promote

 - Evidence for all of the above

 

I'm not trying to be a dick (welcome to the forums, by the way), but I despise hollow accusations (particularly serious ones). I'm a D&D player, so I know what it's like to be on the recieving end of wild and completely fabricated claims of, 'IT'S A CULT!!!!!' (though I'm lucky in that it's not as serious an issue as it once was).

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure I heard Ted Haggard

I'm sure I heard Ted Haggard call Dawkins a "stupid cult" once - maybe I misheard?


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
There are some very clever

There are some very clever people here but I have aggressively disagreed with most of them on at least some things. Also I think the people here don't neccessarily have that much in common. Most are atheists but not all  and the range of politics is extremely wide not to mention there are people from all other the world coming here.

I'm not sure a cult and an active forum would even work as everyone would just agree with each other which would be a bit dull


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This is all quite

This is all quite interesting but can I get some more information of the 'forced drug use' thing? Is this perhaps an improvement to the site for the future?

Can I also propose that if you are intending to go down the road of becoming a cult that we start with this?

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
People love to make

People love to make everything into a bigger deal than it is to make themselves look better, funnier or cooler. I don't see this place as a cult, just a forum to discuss ideas and vent about ignorance.

*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


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
peppermint wrote:People love

peppermint wrote:

People love to make everything into a bigger deal than it is to make themselves look better, funnier or cooler. I don't see this place as a cult, just a forum to discuss ideas and vent about ignorance.

That's what our Glorious Leader wants you to think.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Yes, Dawkin is a kult

While I am aware of having may detractors and perhaps no supporters here I tested richarddawkings.net with the same material I have posted here. That started about four days ago. Unsurprisingly my access no longer works solely for asking clarification from a moderator. OK, I threw in a few needles too but in any scientific sense I played by the rules.

Here is the entire exchange.

[blockquote]

{quote="Ilovelucy"}Nosy Mouse

We have removed the link posted in your signature because it is in
contravention of the forum's rules about promoting hatred. I have also
issued you with an informal warning for personal attack made in one of your
posts, informal because it is your first offence. You should also refrain
from using terms such as "holohugger", which do nothing to further debate
but simply provoke and inflame.
Thank you
Ilovelucy{/quote}

You are not helping me here. So far as I am aware I have made no personal
attack on anyone. It certainly would help to know what you are talking
about.

As to the link, it is entirely factual. I have researched it quite
thoroughly although if it contains factual error I would be quite pleased to
have you point it out. The truth cannot be hate. I presume you realize that.
It is not reasonable to consider the actions approved by the vast majority
of the citizens after the consequences were known to be unrepresentative of
those actions.

Absent a better term I invented holohugger over a decade ago. Expressions
such as member of the holocaust confession are unwieldy. It quite well
describes the kind of person who, in the middle of a discussion of matters
of justice in the Demjanjuk case interjects holocaust as an imagined trump
card ending the discussion in their favor.

In any event, please provide the specifics of this alleged personal attack
so that I may avoid it in the future.
[/blockquote]

So yes, richarddawkins.net is a kult.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
TC436 wrote: If that is a

TC436 wrote:
If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

You probably won't be censored. The only people I've seen banned or edited are people who were literally asking for it, by posting strings of expletives without any humorous purpose, or something like that. If you did the same kind of "RRS is a cult" thing here, you'd just get the responses you've already seen. Really hard-hitting, emotional responses, like, "Oh, I don't know about that, for the following reasons ..."

It's a very tolerant group if you're not being a troll on purpose -- I wouldn't worry about it.

Welcome and enjoy.

Edit: You'll notice we haven't banned the guy who posted above me. Need I say more?

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


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

HisWillness wrote:

TC436 wrote:
If that is a problem then just say and I will leave now. But I would really like to have a forum I can come to in order to share my rationalist viewpoints without censor.

You probably won't be censored. The only people I've seen banned or edited are people who were literally asking for it, by posting strings of expletives without any humorous purpose, or something like that. If you did the same kind of "RRS is a cult" thing here, you'd just get the responses you've already seen. Really hard-hitting, emotional responses, like, "Oh, I don't know about that, for the following reasons ..."

It's a very tolerant group if you're not being a troll on purpose -- I wouldn't worry about it.

Welcome and enjoy.

Edit: You'll notice we haven't banned the guy who posted above me. Need I say more?

Let me be clear. I can no longer log in, period. A_Nony_Mouse is history. Finis. 30. Holohuggers have carried the day without recourse, period.

Yes, richarddawkins.net is a kult. Period.

Game

Set

Match

I did not prove it. I gave Dawkins the opportunity to prove it.

No, Dawkins is NOT separate from the website he owns. He is totally responsible and perosnally responsible for everything it does.

I am not playing guilt by association here.

I am saying the Kommandant is responsible for his command. This is Dawkins, period unless he wishes to cop a plea of incompetent management.Dawkins is pro-Jewish not atheist. Dawkins is pro-Israel not a scientist. Dawkins is a holohugger. I have no problem if Dawkins will publically repudiate these assholes and reinstate my account. That is for him to do. But this IS HIS website and everything done on it is his personal responsibility. There is no question of that.

For what it is worth, I am already logged in as other handles and I will present the entire issue at a later date to the forum participants so that no one misses the facts of what happened. I did the same thing here as something like "two weeks ago" for what that is worth. 

I am smarter than the average nude.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Let me be

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Let me be clear. I can no longer log in, period. A_Nony_Mouse is history. Finis. 30. Holohuggers have carried the day without recourse, period.

I think this is a propos: what do we figure is more cringe-worthy: Nony's "holohuggers" label (which seriously makes me gag just a little) or Dawkins' attempted "brights" movement? One is legitimately offensive, whereas I'd say the other is monumentally embarassing, so cast your vote.

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


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

HisWillness wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Let me be clear. I can no longer log in, period. A_Nony_Mouse is history. Finis. 30. Holohuggers have carried the day without recourse, period.

I think this is a propos: what do we figure is more cringe-worthy: Nony's "holohuggers" label (which seriously makes me gag just a little) or Dawkins' attempted "brights" movement? One is legitimately offensive, whereas I'd say the other is monumentally embarassing, so cast your vote.

My vote is very clear. In any discussion of WWII, if the mere invocation of the undefined word Holocaust trumps any rational discussion, then there cannot be any rational discussion of WWII.

In the example which is the cause of this judeophilic elimination of access to the discussion.

You will note the specific application of the word holohugger which in fact I did invent. The Toronto Star did attribute the invention of the descriptive term to Ingrid Rimland but despite our efforts they refused to issue a correction.

You have read the reason I invented the term and how I have always applied it.

I have read many expressions of dislike, disgust and associated imaginary adjectival complaints.

I have yet to read a single factual reason to object to the term.

If you have a factual reason, please be the first to present it and successfully defend it. In practice I have NEVER received even a presenation of a factual objection. I have never needed to invoke the successful defense part. Again, be the first.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:I have no

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have no problem if Dawkins will publically repudiate these assholes and reinstate my account. That is for him to do. But this IS HIS website and everything done on it is his personal responsibility. There is no question of that.

I don't think Dawkins spends much time policing his forum, if at all.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

butterbattle wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have no problem if Dawkins will publically repudiate these assholes and reinstate my account. That is for him to do. But this IS HIS website and everything done on it is his personal responsibility. There is no question of that.

I don't think Dawkins spends much time policing his forum, if at all.

Given the "BUY MY BOOKS" and "TALK ABOUT ME" plastered onto every link, I don't think he gives a rat's ass beyond the royalties it brings in.

That does not make him any less responsible for the the website.

If you do a whois you do not find him connected with it. I have seen that before. It is an elementary legal dodge. It means one only talks about the website in a manner that is false only if he is not the owner.

In Britain, should he be directly connected with "defaming" me, he must prove it is true in a court of law should a law firm solicit me to represent me in a "gimme" lawsuit. England has a lot of them. At the moment its odd version of libel has made it a "vacation destination" for filing lawsuits which in fact have nothing to do with England.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Oh...

Hambydammit wrote:

 Oh... one other thing.  The private lives of any and all members of this website are off limits as conversation topics unless and until the person in question brings it up first.  Be warned.

 

No offense if a person does something public such as say internet porn then it's no longer private if it's available to everyone and anyone really. I have to disagree with that statement regarding kellym, if of course the rumors are true, with that said, once it's in the public domain it's no longer private life, it's not like the person is giving away intimate details about the persons life. Again, what each of us do in our lives is our personal matter until it become part of the public domain, just as I guard my privacy online to en extent, if I decide to get into the online porn industry, in all reality that part is no longer part of my private life.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 No offense taken, Latin.

 No offense taken, Latin.  The thing is, this isn't an internet gossip forum.  It's an atheist forum, and if a person's private life (even if it is public) has nothing to do with atheism, science, or critical thinking, it's gossip.

If someone wants to talk about prostitution or porn as it applies to atheism, fine.  If someone wants to talk about a specific prostitute, it better have something very specific about atheism too it, or it's gossip.  For instance, if someone was running a "Prostitution for Atheism" website, that would be a good topic for the board.  If someone who happens to be an atheist is a prostitute, then talking about them for no other reason than to talk about them... well...  there it is.

The fact that there is a lot of talk about Kelly on the interwebz these days is not particularly relevant to anything I can think of.  Regardless of the truth or falsehood of any rumor in particular, her views as publicly stated on the board have always been in favor of the sex industry as legitimate, so there's no chance of anyone crying "foul" on that count.  Furthermore, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that Kelly hasn't posted in, what... close to a year?  Isn't it obvious that she's doing other things with her life right now?  Regardless of what they are, what does it have to do with anything?  This isn't the Kelly board.  Nobody's beating the boards down to talk about what Yellow #5's doing in his spare time, or Todangst, or Tomcat, or Mr. Gawn, or any of the dozen or so people who've been active here and moved on.

This isn't a gossip forum, and as far as I can tell, Kelly's moved on for the time being, and it's the same as any of the other folks I just mentioned.  People come and go in internet land.  If Kelly comes back, and wants to talk about her life, that's her prerogative.  Until and unless she does, she will be given the same respect as any other member who's decided to take either a temporary or permanent hiatus.

 

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

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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: No

Hambydammit wrote:

 No offense taken, Latin.  The thing is, this isn't an internet gossip forum.  It's an atheist forum, and if a person's private life (even if it is public) has nothing to do with atheism, science, or critical thinking, it's gossip.

If someone wants to talk about prostitution or porn as it applies to atheism, fine.  If someone wants to talk about a specific prostitute, it better have something very specific about atheism too it, or it's gossip.  For instance, if someone was running a "Prostitution for Atheism" website, that would be a good topic for the board.  If someone who happens to be an atheist is a prostitute, then talking about them for no other reason than to talk about them... well...  there it is.

The fact that there is a lot of talk about Kelly on the interwebz these days is not particularly relevant to anything I can think of.  Regardless of the truth or falsehood of any rumor in particular, her views as publicly stated on the board have always been in favor of the sex industry as legitimate, so there's no chance of anyone crying "foul" on that count.  Furthermore, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that Kelly hasn't posted in, what... close to a year?  Isn't it obvious that she's doing other things with her life right now?  Regardless of what they are, what does it have to do with anything?  This isn't the Kelly board.  Nobody's beating the boards down to talk about what Yellow #5's doing in his spare time, or Todangst, or Tomcat, or Mr. Gawn, or any of the dozen or so people who've been active here and moved on.

This isn't a gossip forum, and as far as I can tell, Kelly's moved on for the time being, and it's the same as any of the other folks I just mentioned.  People come and go in internet land.  If Kelly comes back, and wants to talk about her life, that's her prerogative.  Until and unless she does, she will be given the same respect as any other member who's decided to take either a temporary or permanent hiatus

 

For the most part I agree with you, however being that she is a founding member of this RRS and has made televised debate, she now became a public figure as well, and unfortunately public perception for the most part (society as a whole) is persuaded by their own bias views of pornography or the accusation of pornography. Now personally I can care less what a person does porn or otherwise. However the unfortunate by-product of her association with this site and the rumour of her pornstar status has strayed into these forums and of course into other forums, and the silence of course just fuels the fire, as gossip tends to do.

With that said even with her statements and views being made public on this forums, we both know that they can be derailed in the light of the public perception of a person's association with porn industry, and for the most part this tends to affect those involved with places like this, again just a by-product of the gossip on the net. Wish it wasn't like that but we both know how the public perception works.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

As a follow up. I was playing nice and just asking questions. But a modergod must have noticed when on the atheists cannot be Jews thread when I asked if we should expect "Atheists for Jesus" to come next. Thread is titled Strike the Root if anyone wants to look at what Kult Objekt said after A_Nony_Mouse was banned.

For the record I made no secret of it. I gave an email address which is from a mail forwarding feature on my website. It wasn't like I was using gmail.

And if anyone is interested I am starting to post in forums here where there might be theists of the Jewish persuasion. If anyone wants to post a disclaimer about me have a go at it. I am making no secret of it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
 aww looks like they

 aww looks like they deleted all of your posts as well 

what is this link they are talking about?

btw I think I found something about you 

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=82357&p=2003368&hilit=holohugger#p2003368

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


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

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have yet to read a single factual reason to object to the term.

If you have a factual reason, please be the first to present it and successfully defend it. In practice I have NEVER received even a presenation of a factual objection. I have never needed to invoke the successful defense part. Again, be the first.



I'm not suggesting you'll receive a factual objection to the term. Of course, the term was clearly designed to be inflammatory, so my objection is that it refers to the killing of lots of people systematically (I don't care if it's 10,000 or 100,000 or 6,000,000). Killing ONE person systematically is awful. Continuing to use a term that has proven to limit your avenues of discourse shows that you're more interested in being inflammatory than correcting what you perceive to be untruths.



Now, I find the discussion about the holocaust itself repulsive, but you do have one point: that Israeli politicians use the holocaust to their advantage when engaging in asymmetric warfare. Their retaliations are out-of-proportion policing measures, and using one set of killings to defend another is pure nonsense. But the same argument could be applied to many nations. It strikes me as odd that you fixate on this one point of contention, but I, myself, tend to fixate occasionally on subjects (like atheism), so I can't really hold that against you.



As viciously insensitive as I consider your treatment of the holocaust, I'm a big believer in open discussion. I'm not sure why you've decided that only one type of lying killer should be considered bad, but if any of us are to know, we'll have to have an open discussion about it.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Holohugger" made me think

"Holohugger" made me think of something to do with 3d laser generated images ('holograms', the Star Trek Holodeck). Didn't think of the holocaust until it was explained. "hugger" doesn't seem to fit too well - the vast bulk of people who accept that the holocaust was a real event, and get annoyed at 'deniers', aren't exactly emotionally drawn it in a positive sense, which is what is implied by 'hugging', rather they are repulsed by people who are fixated on denying it.

IOW, I don't see it as a well thought-out term. It doesn't work for me at all well in making me think of people who get mad at holocaust deniers, if that's what it is meant to refer to.

It feels to me it could more appropriately be applied to the Nazis who did think the extermination of Jews was a good thing.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I think he's trying to use

I think he's trying to use the term Holohugger to refer to people who "cling" to it when he presents his "factual" argument against it. Regardless of weather it's true or not, he's certainly not going to win anyone over by insulting them. It's comparable to an atheist trying to convert someone while calling them a stupid theist the whole time. There's an old saying, "You catch more flies wish honey than vinegar."

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I think

spike.barnett wrote:

I think he's trying to use the term Holohugger to refer to people who "cling" to it when he presents his "factual" argument against it. Regardless of weather it's true or not, he's certainly not going to win anyone over by insulting them. It's comparable to an atheist trying to convert someone while calling them a stupid theist the whole time. There's an old saying, "You catch more flies wish honey than vinegar."

The only usage of '-hugger' that came to mind for me was 'tree-hugger', referring to:

Quote:

noun informal chiefly derogatory

an environmental campaigner (used in reference to the practice of embracing a tree in an attempt to prevent it from being felled).

according to my dictionary.

Still makes me think more of someone like Hitler embracing the concept of a holocaust, than anyone opposed to the Holocaust deniers. 'Holohuggers' seems more like a label one would apply to a fringe, 'campaigning' group, like Holocaust Deniers themselves, than to the mainstream of people who simply accept it as a fact of history. But I suppose it is directed at the people who more actively oppose people like him.

Still seems a clumsy term, although I can see what he's trying to say with it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Tapey wrote:

 aww looks like they deleted all of your posts as well 

what is this link they are talking about?

btw I think I found something about you 

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=82357&p=2003368&hilit=holohugger#p2003368

Looks like I rank right up there with flouride as SDog thinks should be banned.

As long as the crackpots love me I'll never feel down.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Looks

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Looks like I rank right up there with flouride as SDog thinks should be banned.

Are you referring to me when you say SDog?

If so, I don't think you should be banned. We may have opposing views on just about everything, but I wouldn't ban you if I could.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

HisWillness wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have yet to read a single factual reason to object to the term.

If you have a factual reason, please be the first to present it and successfully defend it. In practice I have NEVER received even a presenation of a factual objection. I have never needed to invoke the successful defense part. Again, be the first.

I'm not suggesting you'll receive a factual objection to the term. Of course, the term was clearly designed to be inflammatory,

No more inflammatory than being called a neo-nazi, jew hater, or antisemitic. Those are approved inflammatory words. Not only are they inflammatory they are also defamatory in both the everyday and legal meanings of the word. Pardon if I do not see a problem with using the word in response.

HisWillness wrote:
so my objection is that it refers to the killing of lots of people systematically (I don't care if it's 10,000 or 100,000 or 6,000,000). Killing ONE person systematically is awful. Continuing to use a term that has proven to limit your avenues of discourse shows that you're more interested in being inflammatory than correcting what you perceive to be untruths.

Systematic as opposed to what? Random? As in the execution of a mass murderer? Putting systematic and holocaust together is supposed to make it worse somehow. But this is a change barely two decades old. Originally the "evil" description was industrial. That was back when Metropolis was a metophor like Star Wars today. WWI was "industrial" too. It was a change for the worse back then. As the connection of industrial and holocaust started getting nothing but quizzical stares they Holocaust Industry (available from Amazon.com) started using the word that applies to mass murders like Columbine. Noting of course events like Columbine do appear random.

But of course 1 or 6 million is the same in this reality. The worst penalty is death in either case. However that robs the faux uniqueness of the holy holocaust from its adherents. The adherents are holohuggers. They are similar to treehuggers and what is clearly understood if I say Jesushuggers.

HisWillness wrote:
Now, I find the discussion about the holocaust itself repulsive, but you do have one point: that Israeli politicians use the holocaust to their advantage when engaging in asymmetric warfare. Their retaliations are out-of-proportion policing measures, and using one set of killings to defend another is pure nonsense. But the same argument could be applied to many nations. It strikes me as odd that you fixate on this one point of contention, but I, myself, tend to fixate occasionally on subjects (like atheism), so I can't really hold that against you.

In the Dawkins case it arose in the context of Demjanjuk and the question of justice in the matter of charging a camp guard as an accessory to murder. I asked if the guards at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib should also be charged as accessories to torture and in the case of a man dying during torture, as accessories to felony murder. Needless to say I was getting no credible response until one person raise the holy holocaust with the clear implication that the magnitude of the crime outweighed all considerations of justice. Thus Demjanjuk should be charged while "our" guards should not be. Again, I did not bring it up.

Additionally the URL that is talked about had nothing to do with anything holocaust but was rather www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ So here one sees a contrived use of holocaust to refer to the acts of Israel which are supported by 81% of Israelis noting Israel is 80% Jewish one can only ask after the extra 1%.

HisWillness wrote:
As viciously insensitive as I consider your treatment of the holocaust, I'm a big believer in open discussion. I'm not sure why you've decided that only one type of lying killer should be considered bad, but if any of us are to know, we'll have to have an open discussion about it.

Viciously insensitive. Is not this entire website as well as it stated purpose viciously insensitive believers? Is what we may discuss based upon what others choose to get worked up about?

It is patently absurd for people to claim they are honestly upset over people who they never met and who died before they were born. That is simply not human nature. That is contrived. That is fake. And if it is neither those who do get emotional over it need medication and counseling. It just ain't normal. We don't see that even in openly ancestor worshipping cults.

Back when I was first "exposed" as a non-believer in this matter there was a short discussion of it. It ended very quickly. I merely applied the same manner of reasoning as I do to god believers. Perhaps they just lost interest. Fact is the most ardent believers don't know any more about the subject than a Baptist whose only knowlege came from Sunday School as a kid.

Of  course I do not take the "testimony" of others in either case. I do require a person defending it to personally defend it. I do not take pictures as true because of the caption. Dig out all the other believer gimmicks and you will find they are the same in both cases and the basis for belief is just as lame in both cases.

And the EVIL of those who do not believe it just as great in both cases.

I do not have a comprehensive list I can rattle off but the logical fallacies such as circular reasoning are the same.

And then the final question. In the grand scheme of things which has the greater potential for harm if in error? Belief in god or in the jewish holocaust? Believers consistently choose the latter. Sort of strange no? God may forgive but the ancestors won't? How primitive.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

spike.barnett wrote:

I think he's trying to use the term Holohugger to refer to people who "cling" to it when he presents his "factual" argument against it. Regardless of weather it's true or not, he's certainly not going to win anyone over by insulting them. It's comparable to an atheist trying to convert someone while calling them a stupid theist the whole time. There's an old saying, "You catch more flies wish honey than vinegar."

If I gave a damn I just might bring up the subject. I never do. When it is brought up by others I may deal with by "dis"respecting it but still I do not bring it up. The disrespect almost always leads to a demand to show respect for it -- actually show respect for them via it but that they never admit. Finally they may bring it up directly. If so I reply as I would to a Moses freak or Jesus freak.

In any event I have not the slightest interest in converting anyone. I have no interest in that whatsoever. Beliefs do not change. The people who hold them die of old age. My interest is in an open discussion so the baseless belief is exposed.

Frankly, if there was something of the magnitude they claim that actually did happen, they have done a piss poor job of documenting it. In fact it is difficult to imagine a worse job of documentation this side of Lourdes. The biggest lie is that it is documented.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

spike.barnett wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Looks like I rank right up there with flouride as SDog thinks should be banned.

Are you referring to me when you say SDog?

If so, I don't think you should be banned. We may have opposing views on just about everything, but I wouldn't ban you if I could.

Read the first post on the dawkins link, strontium dog. His sig is an anti-fluoridation.

I'm an old fart and I barely remember the fluoridation debates. But I do remember it was available in since the mid-50s Crest toothpaste if anyone wanted it. I have noticed it reappearing but as yet I haven't come across a reason why.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I found SDog. Strontium

I found SDog.


Strontium Dog

I can see why you two wouldn't get along...


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

spike.barnett wrote:

I found SDog.


Strontium Dog

I can see why you two wouldn't get along...

Of course. Being against something that died before you were born is the safest thing in the world. But the greater it is imagined the greater the pretend moral superiority. That is one of the reasons Buffy was so popular. No matter what happened or how portrayed anti-demon is always on the side of the good. (And the other part is if a weak little girl can do it then I can do it.)

If I might digress ... Digress away you say? Don't mind if I do.

Today the French take their national image from Caesar's recounting of his conquest of Gaul and in particular his description of them. Wine, women and song. However that description is of the smallest of the three great tribes that ruled Gaul. It just happened Vercingetorix was one of them.

Back in classical Greece they modeled themselves upon the description of the ideals found in Homer's Iliad. It was a national symbol even though a cursory inspection of the mythology around it reveals its lineage is questionable at best and the ideals are the very definition of idealized.

What does that have to do with us?

For the victors in WWII the total romanticization of that war serves as the Iliad for us. The more idealized that war the more we are publicly exhorted to live up to those ideals. Any honest appraisal of that war taken from even the rhetoric during the war comes off as silly today. Yet it is the ideal.

Take for example the word of lifelong and expert political leaders and statesman who, in all humility, know infinitely more than I can ever know about such matters. In just the last 15 years or so they have assured me, assured us all, that Hitler was no worse than Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat and Ahmadinejad. What can I say to refute such wisdom?

Note Hitler is the definiting element as was Paris or Priam of Ilium. WWII has become at least the US national fable that defines the nation no matter how silly it gets. If Ahmadinejad is the latest Hitler I expect him to become the defining factor in the entire middle east. I expected at least one mass grave in Kosovo instead of none at all. If Hussein was a Hitler then Hitler violently suppressed all discrimination based upon religious differences.

The boy has his delusions of grandeur. Born long after Nazism ended but imagining it under every bed and hiding in every closet just ready to resurrect as vampire zombies and march on the world unless he throws an idiot tantrum at every nazi thing he can imagine.

His empty life needs a Nazi now and then to fill his drab, empty life. At least Don Quixote knew he was delusional and simply preferred it to real life. This boy thinks he has a real life and does not know he is delusional.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


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

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
I'm not suggesting you'll receive a factual objection to the term. Of course, the term was clearly designed to be inflammatory,

No more inflammatory than being called a neo-nazi, jew hater, or antisemitic. Those are approved inflammatory words. Not only are they inflammatory they are also defamatory in both the everyday and legal meanings of the word. Pardon if I do not see a problem with using the word in response.

Well are you a neo-nazi? Do you, in fact, hate Jews? Are you antisemitic? I don't remember your posts well enough to know anything other than you disagree with the consensus on the number of dead. That doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant detail, but I don't know if it comes from a place of hate.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Systematic as opposed to what? Random? As in the execution of a mass murderer? Putting systematic and holocaust together is supposed to make it worse somehow. But this is a change barely two decades old. Originally the "evil" description was industrial. That was back when Metropolis was a metophor like Star Wars today. WWI was "industrial" too. It was a change for the worse back then. As the connection of industrial and holocaust started getting nothing but quizzical stares they Holocaust Industry (available from Amazon.com) started using the word that applies to mass murders like Columbine. Noting of course events like Columbine do appear random.

WWII was industrial, and it was terrible. "Systematic" has the same connotation when I use it. Let's take a look at why the Holocaust really bothers the Western world, because genocide happens in Africa on what now seems to be a fairly regular schedule, and we say, "poor Africa", but it doesn't really touch us like the Holocaust does. The Holocaust gets us because it was us. It was the Western world who did it, and we used everything that we associated with "progress" and "efficiency" to do that. We made death factories.

See, it doesn't matter exactly how many one kills once the death factory is in place, it's the fact that we were depraved enough to do it. Did we kill 100,000 in the death factory? It's chilling no matter what number you use, but even when Holocaust "deniers" use numbers as low as  100,000 it's still a factory of death. It's still the way we do things, and it's rubbed in our faces.

The very idea that we, the Western world, could be anything but noble bothers us to great extremes. Otherwise, how could we be "patriots"? The idea that we would even have the capacity to make a death factory is so deeply disturbing that it becomes symbolic beyond anything else.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
But of course 1 or 6 million is the same in this reality. The worst penalty is death in either case. However that robs the faux uniqueness of the holy holocaust from its adherents. The adherents are holohuggers. They are similar to treehuggers and what is clearly understood if I say Jesushuggers.

Well a million people dying is still awful. Is it really relevant whether it's one and six million? The machinery was clearly in place.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
In the Dawkins case it arose in the context of Demjanjuk and the question of justice in the matter of charging a camp guard as an accessory to murder. I asked if the guards at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib should also be charged as accessories to torture and in the case of a man dying during torture, as accessories to felony murder. Needless to say I was getting no credible response until one person raise the holy holocaust with the clear implication that the magnitude of the crime outweighed all considerations of justice. Thus Demjanjuk should be charged while "our" guards should not be. Again, I did not bring it up.

Well they both should be charged for violating terms of international treaties, as well as the idea that as soon as Americans step outside of American soil, it's "game on". You can rationalize that, but it's no way to go on operating if you want to pretend you're civilized.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
As viciously insensitive as I consider your treatment of the holocaust, I'm a big believer in open discussion. I'm not sure why you've decided that only one type of lying killer should be considered bad, but if any of us are to know, we'll have to have an open discussion about it.

Viciously insensitive. Is not this entire website as well as it stated purpose viciously insensitive believers? Is what we may discuss based upon what others choose to get worked up about?

I consider it insensitive to discuss genocide in a cavalier way. I understand that people take religion very seriously, and moderate my language depending on their sensitivity, and the context. Is it too much to ask?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It is patently absurd for people to claim they are honestly upset over people who they never met and who died before they were born. That is simply not human nature. That is contrived. That is fake.

I've given what I believe are the reasons people actually get upset about the Holocaust (other than blood relatives of victims, obviously, who have more invested). They don't hug the holocaust, they fear its implications for them: that each of us is capable of being terrible, simply by embracing an ideal.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
And then the final question. In the grand scheme of things which has the greater potential for harm if in error? Belief in god or in the jewish holocaust? Believers consistently choose the latter. Sort of strange no? God may forgive but the ancestors won't? How primitive.

I don't think there's a way to compare those things, such that one will cause more harm. We're human beings, and we do these things whether we're Nazis, Hutus, Catholics, Atheists, Jews, Communists, or whatever other category you'd want to put us in. We kill each other in droves, and we're fantastically good at it. But when we commit genocide like in Rwanda, Somalia, Germany, East Timor, or Cambodia, we're doing something especially foul: we've targeted an arbitrary group, and killed as many as we can. Because it's so arbitrary, and the methods so systematic (or "industrial" if you prefer), events like that show us for what we are, and that scares us beyond reason.

 

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


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I agree with Will, as I

I agree with Will, as I usually do...

People don't want to believe we're capable of that kind of behavior. Especially to the extent of designing entire complexes for the sole purpose of slaughtering each other.

It's one thing to shoot a bunch of people and walk away, it's entirely different to work them to death and watch them starve and suffer the entire time.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
I'm not suggesting you'll receive a factual objection to the term. Of course, the term was clearly designed to be inflammatory,

No more inflammatory than being called a neo-nazi, jew hater, or antisemitic. Those are approved inflammatory words. Not only are they inflammatory they are also defamatory in both the everyday and legal meanings of the word. Pardon if I do not see a problem with using the word in response.

Well are you a neo-nazi?

My website was first online at home.aol.com in 1994. Anyone can read it and establish my political leanings are libertarian of the Heinlein school. Although anything can and has been called neo-nazi it is clear I have no such political interests. It should be clear by inspection that very few people have any idea what Nazism was like much less is there any definition for neo-nazism. It has no working meaning. It is a pejorative like Bastards! What I have seen over the years is anyone can be called a Nazi. Communists delighted in declaring all the western countries fascist.

For the record, fascism is national socialism. Communism is international socialism. The sole point of political disagreement is national v international.

Of course if you hear Jews talk about it the only significant event of WWII was their holocaust which the war was fought to stop. But the Allies didn't do enough quickly enough because they hated Jews too.

HisWillness wrote:
Do you, in fact, hate Jews? Are you antisemitic?
Not yet. However the accusation is sufficient such that there is no possible response. It is as effective as child molestor.
HisWillness wrote:
I don't remember your posts well enough to know anything other than you disagree with the consensus on the number of dead. That doesn't strike me as a particularly relevant detail, but I don't know if it comes from a place of hate.

The truth cannot be hate even though there are people who say it can be. There are those who openly and strongly advocate criminalizing even an investigation to see what is and is not true. What is true is true regardless of motivation. As to the numbers, I have researched the issue. There is no foundation for the total. And one can see over the years numbers in individual instances such as camps drastically decreasing the total remains the same. That makes it nothing more than a superstitious number, a number that stands on its own regardless of reality.

So I am not going to bother saying I am not. The allegation must be substantiated and then I will deal with the imagined evidence. Without evidence the allegation is made with malicious intent.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Systematic as opposed to what? Random? As in the execution of a mass murderer? Putting systematic and holocaust together is supposed to make it worse somehow. But this is a change barely two decades old. Originally the "evil" description was industrial. That was back when Metropolis was a metophor like Star Wars today. WWI was "industrial" too. It was a change for the worse back then. As the connection of industrial and holocaust started getting nothing but quizzical stares they Holocaust Industry (available from Amazon.com) started using the word that applies to mass murders like Columbine. Noting of course events like Columbine do appear random.

WWII was industrial, and it was terrible. "Systematic" has the same connotation when I use it. Let's take a look at why the Holocaust really bothers the Western world, because genocide happens in Africa on what now seems to be a fairly regular schedule, and we say, "poor Africa", but it doesn't really touch us like the Holocaust does. The Holocaust gets us because it was us. It was the Western world who did it, and we used everything that we associated with "progress" and "efficiency" to do that. We made death factories.

I am quite familiar with the concept of industrial. A factory is a place things are manufactured for use. I am unaware of any way to manufacture death.

As to the nonsense about progress and efficiency, there are three main methods claimed, carbon monoxide from engine exhaust, hydrogen cyanide from a common pesticide and bullets. I see no particular efficiency in any of them. Bullets differ from swords for execution in requiring less physical effort. Plain old engine exhaust is quite inefficient and nearly impossible with diesel engines which are most commonly reported. Using cyanide packaged as a pesticide for slow release over hours is also inefficient.

I see no way those terms can be used in other than a poetic manner. I prefer dealing with facts and leaving the poetry to strange people.

HisWillness wrote:
See, it doesn't matter exactly how many one kills once the death factory is in place, it's the fact that we were depraved enough to do it. Did we kill 100,000 in the death factory? It's chilling no matter what number you use, but even when Holocaust "deniers" use numbers as low as  100,000 it's still a factory of death. It's still the way we do things, and it's rubbed in our faces.

Under the formulation that 6-4=6, the disappearance of millions from dying in camps changes to being executed in towns as the total is invariant, i.e. sacred. And now the majority is plain ordinary bullets at close range replacing swords at somewhat closer range. Call it what you want in your poetry but do not expect to impose it in factual discussion.

HisWillness wrote:
The very idea that we, the Western world, could be anything but noble bothers us to great extremes. Otherwise, how could we be "patriots"? The idea that we would even have the capacity to make a death factory is so deeply disturbing that it becomes symbolic beyond anything else.

I have no idea why you would portray the west as other than it is simply to make the issue sound worse. The western world is Christian which has adopted the Old Testament while the Jews have only that. (They are so poor they have only one testament. -- almost Mel Brooks) One can find stirring sermons praising the genocide ordered by their god. I have collected rabbis in Israel calling for mass extermination of non-Jews in Ersatz Israel and I do not find condemnation of them in Israel. To be fair a few far left wing jewish Israelis have written that it is inappropriate.

Now if people like to define Nazism as mass murder of particular groups then here there be Nazis.

But lets not be theoretical here. I have heard people talk about seeing the Twin Towers fall and being apalled to realize they were watching the deaths of 3000 people. My response is to ask how they missed seeing the film of the Hiroshima bomb which killed some 30,000 people in the time it took the flash to fade, much less time than for a single tower to collapse. 

Too modern? Look at the death tolls from single battles in WWI. Back when the total population of the American states was around 35 million, some 800,000 were eliminated in a civil war. Not as flashy but the deaths at Gettysburg and Manassas/Bull Run were extremely impressive for their time.

If you seriously look at death tolls in war you find the number of deaths is roughly proportional to how many men could be put into a battle not the weapons used. So you can't really say they were less deadly for lack of trying.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
But of course 1 or 6 million is the same in this reality. The worst penalty is death in either case. However that robs the faux uniqueness of the holy holocaust from its adherents. The adherents are holohuggers. They are similar to treehuggers and what is clearly understood if I say Jesushuggers.

Well a million people dying is still awful. Is it really relevant whether it's one and six million? The machinery was clearly in place.

You keep going back to this small part of WWII. While there is question as to the Red Army losses, a total of some 44 million is commonly used. Sure 1 or 6 million but here we have 44 million being ignored. And this is very common. The focus of WWII is now that holocaust thing rather than the big picture. The poeticly named death factories are a focus not Hiroshima. And even then the bomb is just more impressive but was less effective than fire storms. The bomb was simply cheaper per city than a firestorm.

So why the focus on the holy holocaust? Because it is a jewish thing. Read the credits on any fact or fiction or documentary mentioning WWII and/or the holocaust and draw your own conclusions.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
In the Dawkins case it arose in the context of Demjanjuk and the question of justice in the matter of charging a camp guard as an accessory to murder. I asked if the guards at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib should also be charged as accessories to torture and in the case of a man dying during torture, as accessories to felony murder. Needless to say I was getting no credible response until one person raise the holy holocaust with the clear implication that the magnitude of the crime outweighed all considerations of justice. Thus Demjanjuk should be charged while "our" guards should not be. Again, I did not bring it up.

Well they both should be charged for violating terms of international treaties, as well as the idea that as soon as Americans step outside of American soil, it's "game on". You can rationalize that, but it's no way to go on operating if you want to pretend you're civilized.

Demjanjuk is not charged with violating any treaties and there is no such crime. There are only national laws pursuant to treaty obligations which one can violate. Demjanjuk was never a German citizen. The alleged crimes were not committed in Germany. There were no such German laws in effect at the time. Murder is not a violation of any international treaty nor is mass murder.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
HisWillness wrote:
As viciously insensitive as I consider your treatment of the holocaust, I'm a big believer in open discussion. I'm not sure why you've decided that only one type of lying killer should be considered bad, but if any of us are to know, we'll have to have an open discussion about it.

Viciously insensitive. Is not this entire website as well as it stated purpose viciously insensitive believers? Is what we may discuss based upon what others choose to get worked up about?

I consider it insensitive to discuss genocide in a cavalier way. I understand that people take religion very seriously, and moderate my language depending on their sensitivity, and the context. Is it too much to ask?

Whether or not you moderate your language, the very existence of this website is certainly insensitive and viciously is a matter of opinion. It is certainly aggressive in nature going out of its way to be insensitive. Sauce for the goose and all that.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
It is patently absurd for people to claim they are honestly upset over people who they never met and who died before they were born. That is simply not human nature. That is contrived. That is fake.

I've given what I believe are the reasons people actually get upset about the Holocaust (other than blood relatives of victims, obviously, who have more invested). They don't hug the holocaust, they fear its implications for them: that each of us is capable of being terrible, simply by embracing an ideal.

That is clearly nonsense. Among the traditional groups holocausted are gypseys, homosexuals and some religious sect which escapes me at the moment. Do you see any of them getting upset? Do you see them working themselves into a lather over it? NO, you do not. It is a jewish thing.

Even muttering about blood relatives is nonsense unless they knew them. I lost an uncle in WWII. It was before I was born. In know it is very unjewish of me but I never missed him, not even once.

A fear you say? Genocide is a point of religious pride for Jews. Today rabbis calling for the Palestinians to be exterminated is viewed at worst as a matter of poor taste or bad judgement in letting a reporter hear of it. Never put it in writing. Only say it in synagogue among known congregants. Look above for the response by Jews in Israel and in the US for that matter.

HisWillness wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
And then the final question. In the grand scheme of things which has the greater potential for harm if in error? Belief in god or in the jewish holocaust? Believers consistently choose the latter. Sort of strange no? God may forgive but the ancestors won't? How primitive.

I don't think there's a way to compare those things, such that one will cause more harm. We're human beings, and we do these things whether we're Nazis, Hutus, Catholics, Atheists, Jews, Communists, or whatever other category you'd want to put us in. We kill each other in droves, and we're fantastically good at it. But when we commit genocide like in Rwanda, Somalia, Germany, East Timor, or Cambodia, we're doing something especially foul: we've targeted an arbitrary group, and killed as many as we can. Because it's so arbitrary, and the methods so systematic (or "industrial" if you prefer), events like that show us for what we are, and that scares us beyond reason.

Rwanda, those damned industrial machetes are at it again. Actually Rwanda is perhaps the only one among the events you mention which actually qualifies as a genocide under the definitions in Genocide treaty. That is because it is directed at one tribe by another tribe. But in any event by the treaty definitions it is only an attempted genocide. The German one, if the holohugger stories are legitimate despite the absence of credible documentation, was only to eliminate Jews from Europe. That does fits the "substantial part of" definition along with attempted genocide as prohibited by the treaty. [Pardon, I have not reviewed the genocide treaty in years so there may not be a "substantial part of" provision in which case the Germany issue would not be genocide at all.]

But the expulsion of most of the Palestinians from Palestine does fit one of the definitions of prohibited actions under the genocide treaty -- again as best I remember it. If you want to discuss it we can both review it before starting.

=====

As one who came to learn more about this holocaust thing than I had any interest in learning I can tell you some things about it. It has only stories. There is no credible physical evidence regarding it. It is the worst and if possible the most piss poorly domented major event I have ever come across this side of Lourdes.

I would expect 64 years on that some place there would be at least one definitive forensic study going into excurciating detail regarding the mechanics of it, the physical evidence, the documentation and everything else we can find about nearly every event of the American civil war and even the war of revolution and to make this international, the Napoleanic wars.

If there is such a document it is the best kept secret. I can find all the personal testimony even tearful testimony I want on this and any religion I might like. I find here even the use of martyr, which has the essential component of voluntary, being used without the least sign of irony. I can find anything and everything I might like to find related to any religion but not a single thing of interest which is evidenciary.

If I were told WWII had been conducted in secret, that all but a few documents had been destroyed, that those documents were all in code words, and it took a court to establish that it happened, damned right I would be skeptical.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml