Profile Information

Name: Darren MorWandtague
Gender: Male
Hometown: This un
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 46,206

About Me

Make my funk the P-Funk.

Journal Archives

2013 (22)
- May (3)
- April (9)
- March (4)
- February (4)
- January (3)
2012 (116)
- December (8)
- November (7)
- October (9)
- September (8)
- August (4)
- July (6)
- June (12)
- May (12)
- April (5)
- March (2)
- February (20)
- January (23)
2011 (2)
- December (2)
Older Archives

Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

Warren DeMontague

RSS [All]

Some people seem to believe a lot of idiotic shit.

Some people seem to believe that stay at home parents are lazy dropouts who do nothing except encourage consumption and chauffeur rug rats to unnecessary lessons, when the little monsters should be raising themselves unsupervised, as they did in the good old days.

remdi95 niyad

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Apr 17, 2012, 07:44 PM (3 replies)

The fact that you've trotted out this list as, presumably, slamdunk examples of "bashing", says alot

In reality, the vast majority of them are no such thing. A couple are over the line, Smokey, but really.. most of them aren't and if you're trying to establish some pattern of widespread persecution, I don't think you've made your case.

And furthermore you've sort of shot it in the foot, much as this same tired argument (sorry, "call for respect") often shoots itself in the foot, in several key ways which I will elaborate upon as I break down your examples.

First, I'd like to posit a ground floor axiom for the purposes of this post, and that is, if expressions of skepticism are bigoted, then so are expressions of belief. "God is Pretend" is no more or less bigoted than "Jesus loves you". "I believe in God" is no more or less bigoted than "I don't believe in God, I don't believe in your god", etc. etc. etc. I will refer to this Axiomatic assertion, herewith, via this sequence of symbols: !A!

The second axiom I'd like to propose is the assertion that there is NO relative, objective measure by which one can distinguish "reasonable" or "logical" religious beliefs from any other kind. So if questioning Jesus's resurrection is off limits, then so is questioning the existence of the God Quetzlcoatl, the assertion that there is literally a Mt. Olympus upon which resides Zeus and the fellow stars of his metaphysical reality drama, the assertion that the Earth is only 4,000 years old, etc. I will refer to this axiom by this: !B!

For instances of Special Pleading, I will use this indicator: !C! I'm going to hope, by now, we all have an idea of what special pleading is- often, in these arguments, we see !C! combined with !A! but particularly with !B!.

1) You do NOT get to make the name of your own superstition mean "good person" because doing so screams that those who do not share it are bad people - and all the disingenuous BS in the world will not change that loathsome lie.

And the problem is? You've never heard anyone try to claim that "Christian"="Good Person" (and, conversely, clearly bad people who call themselves "Christians" aren't Real Christians because, again, they're "bad people"?) MT, are you saying it's NOT a "loathsome lie" to assert that only believers in one religion or another are the "good people"? Shit, I think it's a VERY loathsome lie. Or perhaps the problem with this quote is just the one, word, "superstition". If that's a problem, I would refer it back to both !A! and !B!

2) I think "Christians" are probably the most harmful entities on this planet right now. No single group has caused more bloodshed and harm to the living beings on this planet.

Whether or not this assertion could be backed up with statistics, facts, data, or whatever, it's still bashing. On that, we agree. Over the line.

3) I don't bash individual Christians. I bash the idea of Christianity which very much does need to be bashed. With a few exceptions, that's what I see the majority of athiests on DU doing. If it bothers you so that your religion is being bashed, and you take that as a personal affront from all athiests on DU, perhaps your belief is not nearly as strong as you thought.

This one, too, is over the top.

4) Christianity can be used to justify many different and contradictory conclusions which makes it pretty much worthless as any kind of standard to live up to.

The first part is a fairly obvious piece of observation that can be applied to just about any belief system. The second is subjective opinion. I think this post points up a weakness in logical framing of arguments, but I wouldn't file it under bashing. Maybe just poor reasoning, or debate skills.

5) I am convinced that religious belief is delusional at best, and a variety of mental illness at worst. Folks displaying those characteristics are hard to support for leadership positions outside the asylum.

Another example of subjective opinion. Note the use of "I am convinced". Were I to make this sort of statement, I might qualify the 2nd part as well with an "I believe" just to reiterate that point, but this person is stating their opinion. They are entitled to their opinion.

6) I don't even believe he <God>exists, but instead is a made up myth used by groups over the centuries to control people and politics. If that makes me a god-hater I will wear that badge proudly.

A clear example of !A!

7) I believe everyone has a right to believe in anything they want. I also believe people have a right to say they think those beliefs are dangerous, absurd or ridiculous.

I'm really scratching my head as to what could possibly be the fucking problem with this line. For all I know, I wrote it. It sounds like something I would say.

8) Get your religion out of my government or get another Religion.

This is a political sentiment, not a religious one, nor is it bashing of religion nor is it bashing of Christianity.

9) Want Your Ideas Respected, Sir? Get Better Ideas....

Okay, I think we all know who wrote that. Another statement I find extremely hard to find fault with.

10) Religious people want their ridiculous beliefs placed off limits. Why? Too embarrassing to have to defend them?

And, again, what is the alternative, then? NO beliefs may be criticized, ever, or analyzed or even made fun of, because they're someone's special religious belief? The Rapture guy who keeps getting the date wrong? The Westboro Baptists? Frank Chu? Where does it end? ....This one hits all 3: !A!,!B!,and !C!.

11) I ridicule the ridiculous. I care little who or how many decided to make it the central focus of their life.

Presumably, you think that people should NOT ridicule the ridiculous, or what they consider ridiculous, which really means no one should ridicule anything, because everything is probably ridiculous to someone and not ridiculous to someone else. !A! and !C!

You should have stuck with #2 and maybe #3. The rest of your examples only serve to torpedo your argument, not fortify it.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Apr 10, 2012, 05:36 AM (1 replies)

I don't "feel" superior, I am superior, Jack.

Anyway, you've made it perfectly clear that this isn't about a cogent objection to anything in the cartoon (remember... Your OP?) but rather a vigorous exercise in you grinding whatever axe it is that's not sharp enough to get the bees out of your Ostara/Ishtar bonnet.

(how's that for a mixed metaphor?)

I'm not interested in helping you further in that endeavor.

As for the Tao, work it out yourself. Or don't. The Bible tries to pass off illogical, contradictory nonsense as genuine wisdom, the Tao passes off genuine widom as illogical, contradictory nonsense. The Bible resents ridicule, the Tao DEMANDS it. Which is why its jokes are better.

Chew on that.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Apr 8, 2012, 08:20 PM (1 replies)

So, like I said, thank you for your concern.

If it wasn't for heartfelt, thoughtful and sincere expressions of concern, of course, DU would verily and single-handedly drive the public discourse into heretofore horribly dangerous regions where Krakens and 7-headed monsters lurk.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Mar 6, 2012, 01:52 AM (1 replies)

Another example of people who don't understand- and seemingly don't want to understand- science.

Some people are apparently genuinely pissed that the solar system they learned about in elementary school in 1955 is not, actually, how things are.

Tough. If Pluto's a planet, then so is Eris. So is Sedna. So is Makemake. So are a whole bunch of yet-to-be-discovered Kuiper Belt Objects, probably numbering in the tens of thousands, if not more.

I understand that this 'argument' is a little facetious and supposed to be cute, but it points up a REAL problem the general public seems to have with getting their heads around science; namely, that the job of science is to give us constantly better, more detailed, and more accurate descriptions of reality ("maps", if you will) that are ALWAYS updated and revised as new and better data comes in. That's how science works. Problem is, too many members of the general public confuse whatever map they've been taught, usually at a young age (it's worse with folks indoctrinated into fundamentalist religion, of course) with the actual "out there" reality. So they don't understand not just why "Pluto doesn't get to be a planet anymore" but why the explanation and understanding of our solar system is far more rich, detailed, and interesting than it was 50 years ago, and worse, they're incredibly RESISTANT to the updated, more detailed understanding, because it's more comfortable to reside in what they "know".

Eris is bigger than Pluto. Ask the "Pluto People" whether Eris should, also, be a planet, half of them will go "Wha?...."

That's maddening.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Mar 3, 2012, 01:51 AM (4 replies)

Again, it's important to define terms, something many THEISTS seem practically allergic to doing.

People also like to dodge the question by going, "oh, I'm an agnostic". Yeah, I'm agnostic on a LOT of things for which there's no objective evidence; leprechauns, unicorns, the tooth fairy. As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out, in a sense. Evidence could come along at some point to tell me that, yes, there is an invisible 500 foot tall orangutan living on my roof.

Even the question, "Do you believe in God", frames a duality pertaining to a singular, objective, mutually agreed upon and at least generally defined entity where none such general consensus exists. Or to put it another way, which "God"? How about you define the friggin' thing before you expect people to say whether they "believe" in it or not?

Is it "very stupid" to say you don't believe in the Greek Gods? The Roman Gods? Quetzlcoatl? Pan? Eris? Ra? Osiris?

I'd like to see the actual Sagan quote, along with context, please.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Feb 29, 2012, 04:46 PM (2 replies)

You're assuming that people are what they present themselves as online.

Let me give you a brief recap of some of the events that have come to light in the past month or so, all oddly focused around that group and the 'drama' that has played itself out there.

(Please note that the only "members" I am naming names of have all been BANNED from this site or DU2, so I am not bad-mouthing any legitimate active members of this forum)

"Survivoreesta" was banned as a repeat disruptor both on DU2 and DU3. According to Skinner, this was actually a MALE troll, pretending to be a "woman" with serious mental issues.

"Sera_Bellum" and "Feldspar" were BOTH banned after making bigoted transphobic statements, diligent research on the part of attention-paying members revealed that this entity or entities (either one woman, two partnered women conveniently sharing an IP address, or maybe again, a male troll pretending to be both) had previously shown up under the names "Sargasso_Sea", "Evolve_Already", "Ittakesavillage_people", "TAPat" and who knows how many more.

Now, this is my favorite one: After several weeks of vociferously complaining that people were accusing her of not being what "she" was pretending to be, it turns out that "Remember Me" was our old friend "Eloriel" ("remember her"- get it?) who was also "Morgana LaFey" and who knows how many other incarnations.

Beyond the mind-boggling confusion of what may be a male troll with several identities pretending to be a feminist woman who makes bigoted transphobic comments, of all things (

) I think maybe the element you're missing to all this is that for whatever reason there have been some serious weirdos with multiple identity issues who have fixated on that particular group. Maybe what admin wants, or at least the current host wants, is some co-hosts who actually are what they claim to be, so some of the attendant bullshit around that forum can be allowed to wither away.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 09:05 PM (7 replies)

In Other News: Crack Addicts Decry Cost Of Crack, Demand Cheaper Crack As Solution To Crack Problem.

Repeatedly Insist That The ONLY Solution to Crack Problem is Endless Supply of Cheap Crack, No Other Solution To Crack Problem Can Possibly Be Imagined.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:59 AM (1 replies)

Because Jesus shoulda spent more time killin' dinosaurs, and less time mollycoddlin' em!

YEEE HAAAW!!!!

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:53 AM (0 replies)

because the anti-choice agenda to outlaw contraception is supposed to be a secret

they know it's a loser, but they also can't go "We don't want to overturn Griswold, we acknowledge that people have a right to use contraception" (in other words, they have a "license to do things in the sexual realm that make God mad" or whatever it was Sticky Ricky said) ... they can't do that because THE INSANE BELIEF that ONE OF THESE DAYS they'll be able to throw all the 'sluts' who use the pill in prison (while telling the rest to put an aspirin between their knees) has been the secret fantasy that has kept all these repressed fetus fetishists priapic for all these years, probably ever since 1974 when everyone else was getting laid and they were sitting at home with Pat Boone on the 8 track.

In case anyone doubts that this has been what it's been about from the get-go, remember that the HLA has been a central part of the GOP Plank for decades. Here's what the big 'pro life' orgs have to say on the HLA, contraception, etc:

http://www.all.org/article/index/id/MjM4NQ

Spin, Spin, Spin. However grudgingly they may acknowledge that "The American People are still apparently favorable to contraception" (cue the heavy siiiiigh

) it's pretty clear that the plan is to go after the bad pills once the abortion drs are out of the way:

It is true, of course, that the plague of abortion is attributable in large part to the mentality of unwanting babies that is characteristic of the contraceptive society that we have become.

It is clear that the intrauterine device and many birth control pills are abortifacients rather than contraceptives. The HLA would permit a state legislature to control such abortifacients...

Where a device or pill has no other use than to terminate life, the legislature, pursuant to the HLA, could prohibit its manufacture and sale.

(cough. handguns. cough.)

This is a matter of great importance, because the abortion of the near future is going to be by pill or other do-it-yourself means. If we concentrate only on surgical abortions at later stages of pregnancy, we risk sanctioning a wholesale slaughter of persons in the earliest stages of life. There is a tendency in some parts of the pro-life movement to seek a "quick fix" by conceding the legitimacy of early abortions. This would be a fatal mistake. The fact is that the lUD and most birth control pills do kill people. Their victims are very little people but it surely is within the power of any civilized society to do whatever can be done to prevent those killings.

http://prolifeaction.org/faq/stand.php#abc

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/01/358658/personhood-usa-confirms-that-mississippi-abortion-ban-would-outlaw-birth-control-pills/

anyway, if these Jesusbagger a-holes are so sure they're right, they should be ECSTATIC that their godly keep-your-legs-crossed-young-lady agenda is getting so much airtime. I mean, I thought the "values voter" was all-powerful, and all that noise about a pro-choice majority was just librul socialist godless agit-prop.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Feb 23, 2012, 08:50 PM (0 replies)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »