Recent conversations have reminded me of this principle: When arguments against Atheism cannot be refuted, charge Hate Speech. This is in line with the general tone of totalitarianism that accompanies elitist Atheism, and it falls in line with totalitarian moves to squelch speech. In this case, it is false morality that is being projected onto the obnoxious arguer who won't back down regarding his characterization of Atheism and Atheists.
IF a charge is made which conflicts with the self-image and worldview of tautological morality of the Atheist, THEN that charge is immoral: it is HATE speech.
IF speech is immoral HATE speech, THEN it must be stopped, by shaming if possible, other means when available.
The move toward Atheist (secular) principles of governing in western nations is seen in the move toward punishing speech and thought which is critical of certain Atheist sacred cows.
The Hate charge is not new, it is old hat these days. And it doesn't work in an environment which demands logical reasoning for conclusions, rather than emotional, faux moral condemnations.
Just one more indication of the lack of rational underpinnings which exist in Atheist thought processes, and one more indications of the difference in moral underpinnings in Atheist consequentialist tactics.
ADDENDUM
update:
The addendum has been removed due to improper attribution of certain portions of the material.
44 comments:
Yeah you probably aren't even going to post this (ironic?), but you're so outrageously provocative I have to at least make an attempt at a response.
1) I don't give a shit what you say so long as your saying it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I don't speak for all atheists, however I doubt this is an uncommon perspective.
2) Yes, some people overreact to political correctness. I find this tedious and rather pathetic.
3) Rushdie and Hirsi Ali are ATHEISTS being threatened by THEISTS. Atheists are not accused of attempted ASSASSINATIONS on these two! Are you this unaware? Or is your intellectual honesty drowned in your desire for polemics?
4) You protest that free speech is being impeded and then condemn the free speech of others as "shaming".
5) If there is an "Atheist sacred cow", free speech is likely one of them. You don't hear too often an intelligible arguments for imprisoning the WBC for hate speech. Yes, they do deserve to be shamed and ridiculed. That's MY right to free speech.
PRINCIPLES OF THEISM: HYPOCRISY.
Oh, and the challenge still stands.
godless, I’ll give you this chance to vent your spleen, this time.
”1) I don't give a shit what you say so long as your saying it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. I don't speak for all atheists, however I doubt this is an uncommon perspective.”
Noble of you.
”2) Yes, some people overreact to political correctness. I find this tedious and rather pathetic.”
So suppression via Hate/Thought crime laws is merely tedious and pathetic? Less noble.
”3) Rushdie and Hirsi Ali are ATHEISTS being threatened by THEISTS. Atheists are not accused of attempted ASSASSINATIONS on these two! Are you this unaware? Or is your intellectual honesty drowned in your desire for polemics?”
Did I say they were theists? Are you that desperate for criticism? See below for an Atheist assassination attempt which accompanied your own free speech.
”4) You protest that free speech is being impeded and then condemn the free speech of others as "shaming".
What comes to mind is the hate fest targeting Chik Fil A / FRC and resulting in a leftist shooting at FRC, a leftist influenced by the hate fest. The AtheoLeft exploded in self-indulgent “moral” shaming including death threats, and accepted no responsibility for the results of their “free speech”. A direct violation of your #1, above.
”5) If there is an "Atheist sacred cow", free speech is likely one of them.”
The Chik Fil A / FRC incident speaks for itself: the AtheoLeft tolerates no breach of their moral values, which actually are moral-free, anarchic, sanctioning of all behaviors which are convenient to their anarchic principles du jour, and including death wishes against the Other.
”You don't hear too often an intelligible arguments for imprisoning the WBC for hate speech. Yes, they do deserve to be shamed and ridiculed. That's MY right to free speech.”
Noble, and right up there with other theists who criticize the WBC. Unless you succumb to death wishes, as do a great many AtheoLeftists, then not so noble.
”PRINCIPLES OF THEISM: HYPOCRISY.”
From your worldview viewpoint, perhaps; rationally, however: no.
And resorting to charges of “hate” against anyone who disagrees with you is indicative of the Hate Crime Law (thought crime) passion which infests the AtheoLeft.
”Oh, and the challenge still stands.”
I don’t recall any challenge, (what I recall is the incessant charges of "hate", from you and your "morality police" buddies) but I’ll bet that it is internally contradictory or otherwise rationally challenged, itself.
"Noble of you."
Nothing noble about according others the same rights one expects for oneself. Positively common of me.
"So suppression via Hate/Thought crime laws is merely tedious and pathetic? Less noble."
Suppression of free speech via hate/thought crime laws is pathetic yes. How is this less noble?
"The attack on free speech by the Left is in the news a lot these days."
Was it the "Left" that threatened Rushdie and Hirsi Ali with death? Was it atheists? Are you that oblivious to your own words. You really think this is me desperate for a criticism? Laughable.
You want to criticize atheists with threatening free speech and then when it is pointed out the ones doing the threatening are not atheists, you respond with "Did I say they were theists? Are you that desperate for criticism?". Are you that desperate to cling to your preposterous thesis?
"The Chik Fil A / FRC incident speaks for itself: the AtheoLeft tolerates no breach of their moral values, which actually are moral-free, anarchic, sanctioning of all behaviors which are convenient to their anarchic principles du jour, and including death wishes against the Other."
I'm not even going to bother looking this up it is so preposterous. So nail me to the wall here Stan. Provide a citation where the AtheoLeft hivemind condoned this behaviour. Not the actions of one crazy person, the sanctioning of this behaviour.
No, the story of CFA was a response to free speech by more free speech.
Oh and look at the result.
"In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights."
Score another for free speech and voting with your wallets. I guess their bottom line was more important than their bigoted agenda, hmm? How can you trust people like this, who's values flip flop on a daily basis? /s
"Noble, and right up there with other theists who criticize the WBC. Unless you succumb to death wishes, as do a great many AtheoLeftists, then not so noble."
I would not characterize this as "noble" either. However mocking poor deluded fundamentalists often seems the only was to respond to such ridiculousness. I have NO idea what you mean by succumbing to death wishes. I don't want to die. This happens to be the only life I have. I enjoy existing. Counter to the theist delusion that this life is only the starter course on some sort of heavenly entree, which could reasonably be called a death wish... Is that it? Do you just get theist and atheist confused? I know they are spelled with great similarity...
"From your worldview viewpoint, perhaps; rationally, however: no. "
Asserted counter to the available evidence. To add more evidence to demonstrate your hypocrisy, how about you look up incidents of the ReligioRight attempting to suppress the rights of others based upon their perceived moral right. You only have to think for a second to gather a dozen examples. Look in your own post. Fuck, religions practically invented thought crime. (in before your Tu Quoque dodge, also before your Gish Gallop of insisting I disprove the non-existent.)
"And resorting to charges of “hate” against anyone who disagrees with you is indicative of the Hate Crime Law (thought crime) passion which infests the AtheoLeft."
Or it is calling a spade a spade. Why are you so hateful? Why can't the Other be afforded the same rights as yourself?
The challenge was a debate where you don't get to act as judge, jury and ban hammer. Right before you deleted my post. Then I called you a chicken shit. Then you banned me. Remember now?
I remember you fairly well. You cannot understand the English language outside of your bias zone. (The reference to Ali and Rushdie was purely in reference to their sequester, not the nature of their threateners). You pick that out purely as a red herring to avoid the issue which is actually at hand. And I did not say they wereAtheists, did I? (Yes there was a typo).
You cannot stop making the Tu Quoques, ridicule, and continuous fallacies your sole type of discourse, and that makes no difference to you: rational discovery of true conclusions is not your point. You never tumble to errors you have made; you merely come back with other fallacies. You shuck and jive and deviate from the focus, which is Atheism. You started out at first producing nothing but ridicule from your presumption of massive superiority, and you progressed to insults and personal attacks. Toward the end, you made it clear that any criticism of Atheism is Hate speech and you condemned everything I said, not with rational logic, not with a single refutation, but with your personal moral authority, derived from yourself. There is nothing short of personal anarchy of which you are not intolerant yourself. For yourself there are no rules: no logic binds you; no moral code for yourself binds you; your moral code is for others – they must tolerate whatever it is you decide is moral, per your morality du jour. Any other moral code is intolerable to you, and your modus operandi is never logic, it is to destroy it by whatever means you can, starting with mockery and progressing to moral condemnation. Where you go from there is anybody’s guess, but the pathway to Hate Crimes is brightly lit by those of your persuasion.
Discussions with such a person are futile. You have no consistent logic, no consistent moral principles (except that you and Atheists must be tolerated regardless of their lack of principled morality or you will scream HATE).
If you want to logically refute any of the Principles of Atheism which I have recently published, then make a deductive case within the rules of disciplined logic. I have made similar challenges to you a great many times before, to no avail. Here’s another chance.
I did tolerate you and your anti-rational, anti-moral antics – for way too long. And I do remember why I banned you: you refuse logic in favor of your own moral policing tactics. And you wish to destroy that which you find distasteful: the illumination of your thought and moral process. So you apply copious bombast and condemnation as carpet bombs, attempting to suppress that illumination.
I haven’t rebanned you yet, but you are close.
” "In September 2012, The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) announced that Chick-fil-A has "ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights."”
Out of fear for their lives, probably, considering the prior events right there in their own lobby at the hands of an uber-moral Leftist.
And yet you choose, as I recall, to discriminate against pedophiles on the basis of children being involved, yet you choose, as I recall, to allow mothers to kill their offspring so long as it is within tolerances of which you approve.
No hypocrisy there.
”No, the story of CFA was a response to free speech by more free speech.”
If you cared at all you would have looked into it when I called you on it the first time. The fact is that you actually don’t care, and you take no responsibility.
Roseanne Barr:
” ABC's The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren't in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ".
This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck an appendage she doesn't have:
Suck my dick chick filet- nazi chicken f---ing pricks
More here, easily found with one quick google search”
There were many, many death wishes; only the fastidiously blinkered could have missed it.
What's the matter Stan? You can't understand plain english, you want everything in the form of a syllogism or you don't have to address it?
Your syllogism is invalid because it follows from false premises. A tiny bit of reading comprehension would allow you to extract my objections and apply it to your "argument". You even acknowledge the counter point and now forget it because it is convenient.
But in your world view, it doesn't matter what I say. I don't believe in gods, therefore I am tautologically immoral, untrustworthy and apparently involved in some scheme to take away your free speech. Paranoid delusional much?
And yet you choose, as I recall, to discriminate against pedophiles on the basis of children being involved, yet you choose, as I recall, to allow mothers to kill their offspring so long as it is within tolerances of which you approve.
And so the Gish Gallop begins. I am not about to get sucked in. I detailed the differences between pedophilia and abortion and the reasonable distinctions between the two acts ad nauseam. Distinctions I feel are so obvious that any adult should not need them explained, never mind multiple times.
I asked for a consensus of atheistic support for an attempted murder and you quote Roseanne Barr (a Jew) wishing cancer on a food chain. What a fucking joke. Ya, that's why I don't care. Because the claim is fucking ridiculous and deserves only ridicule.
More here, easily found with one quick google search”
Not Found
Error 404
This is a joke right? Or maybe you just don't know how to computer.
I'm guessing you still don't have the testicular fortitude to accept my challenge since you won't even acknowledge it.
"Lars Hedegaard answered his doorbell when he saw a mailman there, only to have the guy draw a gun and shoot at his head"
How is being shot at by a conservative theist an attack from the atheist left?
Hey! godless is back from vacation! Do you think he/she learned any new steps while he/she was gone?
It would appear not. Poor godless, same ol' song and dance - the Troll Shuffle. Insult, fling a few poorly-thought-out challenges. Ignore the response or deliberately 'misinterpret' it. Not your fault for being unable to think, but Stan's fault for not make it 'simple'.
Shuck and jive a little more, ignore clarifications, dive into a hairsplitting mission, then throw a few more crappy challenges. Same ones you've thrown before, they've been answered long since.
But godless, god bless it, is not here for answers, it's here for entertainment. Bait Stan, bait the others, ignore their responses and bait them again. Curse left and right, because, you know, that's edgy, and shows you're just one of the guys, not some highfalutin' college boy with all them big words.
Dance, Stan! DANCE!!!
Or... you could delete his posts. Don't feed the troll.
pubalco,
You are right; I have allowed my understanding that the AtheoLeft is defensive of Islam to color the selection of examples. Islam is not the same as the AtheoLeft, despite the Leftist attachment to it because of its antagonism to (the hated) Israel.
Nonetheless, the attack on speech in this country is from the Left. The Other is "racist", "hateful", "intolerant", and so on, merely by having criticised the concepts and moral values of the AtheoLeft.
In much of the rest of the world, including the UN, the attack on speech is from Islamists.
It is always interesting to see the world's Leftist support Islamist killings on the one hand, and to rail against Islamist theism on the other.
Godless said,
”What's the matter Stan? You can't understand plain english, you want everything in the form of a syllogism or you don't have to address it?
Your syllogism is invalid because it follows from false premises. A tiny bit of reading comprehension would allow you to extract my objections and apply it to your "argument". You even acknowledge the counter point and now forget it because it is convenient.
But in your world view, it doesn't matter what I say. I don't believe in gods, therefore I am tautologically immoral, untrustworthy and apparently involved in some scheme to take away your free speech. Paranoid delusional much?”
You cannot address these issues, right? This is your response: paranoid delusional. An accusation against the arguer, not the argument. A waste of time. (déjà vu). Yes: Atheists, including you, believe that they are tautologically moral, having created their own morality (which you have admitted in the past); Atheists, including you, cannot generate trust because their morals are not fixed principles, are subjective, and can be changed on a whim; Atheists, including you, make emotional moral claims against having these and other characteristics made plain for all to see, then making charges which are intended to squelch such speech, by imbuing onerous immorality to it - falsely.
”And yet you choose, as I recall, to discriminate against pedophiles on the basis of children being involved, yet you choose, as I recall, to allow mothers to kill their offspring so long as it is within tolerances of which you approve."
"And so the Gish Gallop begins."
Oh, that's right, I forgot. Subjects which are painfully brought up to be addressed again are labeled, rather than addressed. Atheists cannot handle more than one accusation, apparently, under the dictum of Gish. "Gishing" is usually shouted over the shoulder of a retreating Atheist.
"I am not about to get sucked in. I detailed the differences between pedophilia and abortion and the reasonable distinctions between the two acts ad nauseam. Distinctions I feel are so obvious that any adult should not need them explained, never mind multiple times.
Of course you will not defend it. I understand. Your morals stop where it is convenient for you to stop them.
”I asked for a consensus of atheistic support for an attempted murder and you quote Roseanne Barr (a Jew) wishing cancer on a food chain. What a fucking joke. Ya, that's why I don't care. Because the claim is fucking ridiculous and deserves only ridicule.”
More here, easily found with one quick google search”
Not Found
Error 404
This is a joke right? Or maybe you just don't know how to computer.
You can’t google? And this is my fault… why?
”I'm guessing you still don't have the testicular fortitude to accept my challenge since you won't even acknowledge it.”
I have given you every chance to provide a rational argument against any or all of my claims right here for all to see. You don’t do so, because you can’t. So you want to go off to someplace where ridicule and contempt win all arguments. I prefer rational argumentation. If you want that, you know what to do: make your argument here. If can’t / won’t, that’s your personal issue, set out here for all to see.
So either do it rationally, or go away.
I'm stunned. According to Stan, it is atheists who are to blame when theists kill.
Perhaps you are letting your dislike of a certain section of people make you speak irrationally.
Stunned.
Read the comments above you before you comment. The subject here is Atheism; I erroneously selected examples from the Islamist attack on free speech.
Now, why don't you address the bloody Leftist attack on FRC which was induced by the Leftist hate fest, which was an attack on the type of free speech which the AtheoLeftists hate?
You can’t google? And this is my fault… why?
Yeah I can google, and I didn't find a single atheist or left leaning person endorsing the nutcase who fired at the guard at CFA, never mind the sort of consensus you imply exists. I did find several condemning the action. It's YOUR claim YOU support it.
I even went back on this very site to your emotionally satisfied rant when the shooting first happened and noted I had condemned the action.
Oh and apparently we hate Israel now? News to me. Shuck and jive indeed. I guess just saying dodge gets old.
So you want to go off to someplace where ridicule and contempt win all arguments.
I said third party. You can suggest the forum. I don't have anything specific in mind. Maybe try that "google" thing all the kids are talking about.
But at this point, I'm quite convinced you don't have the stones to argue in a place where you don't control the content.
Oh and Steven, I'm quite sure that you can't see the reasoning behind my posts because your head is jammed up Stan's ass. Ooh a swear word! Go cry child. Maybe you should try actually forming a thought all on your own. Maybe engage in the actual argument rather than continuing to call me a troll.
So .. back to Google one more time.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=atheist+left+wing+violence+in+america
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=religious+right+wing+violence+in+america
Ya ya I know. Tu Quoque fallacy right? Bullshit. Look at the facts. The religious right is stocked with stories of violence. The atheistic left? Not so much. You have to scroll pretty far to find something remotely close.
IF a charge is made which conflicts with the self-image and worldview of tautological morality of the Atheist, THEN that charge is immoral: it is HATE speech.
IF speech is immoral HATE speech, THEN it must be stopped, by shaming if possible, other means when available.
I have refuted this. Shaming hate speech is "noble", says Stan.
"Other means", of which he lists violent acts, are bullshit examples predominately featuring theist actions. Oh but atheists LOOOVE Islam and HAAATE Israel so basically that's the same.
Right. Get a fucking clue. Oh let me guess, somehow this isn't rationally stated? Ya, that's why I want a third party.
Ib4 deleted and banned!
@clueless: Why would he volunteer to submit to a third party? To provide you with an audience so your insults and cursing have some kind of context? Next you'll be asking him to buy you a cup of coffee... because you apparently can't keep awake during the boring sessions where he uses reason to counter your tomfoolery.
Stan, again: it's your blog, but a troll is a troll. You've given this... person... the heave-ho before. Why is he back?
Really Steve. You can't imagine any reason why someone with a polemic position on a hotly debated topic might have interest in an debate with a third party moderator?
Really.
Try harder.
Atheist bloggers get people killed here.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/511088/deadly-bangladesh-clashes-over-atheist-bloggers/
godless:
” Yeah I can google, and I didn't find a single atheist or left leaning person endorsing the nutcase who fired at the guard at CFA, never mind the sort of consensus you imply exists. I did find several condemning the action. It's YOUR claim YOU support it.”
Incitement; those who incite a priori, rarely come out and endorse a posteriori. The issue is incitement. But you know that.
But you are right, I can no longer find the multitude of hate tweets that filled the blogs at the time. They have evaporated.
So I have decided to compile my own file of these hate rants as they occur, and keep the file where it won’t volatilize. We’ll see what we’ll see. The “killbush” ranters can’t hold it in for long.
Yes, that will include the charges of genocide etc. against Israel when they respond to the random rocket bombardment of their citizens, or stop ships full of weaponry under the food.
And I will attempt to log in the incidents that are ignored (censored by ignoring) by the paleomedia, although that will be an incredibly large task; don’t know if I can keep up with it.
” I said third party. You can suggest the forum. I don't have anything specific in mind. Maybe try that "google" thing all the kids are talking about.
But at this point, I'm quite convinced you don't have the stones to argue in a place where you don't control the content.”
The only content control I exert here is the removal of those who refuse to produce logical deductive arguments for their position, and/or those who rather produce disruption than evidence for their Atheism and charges they make. That’s why you were, belated, removed. And you continue in your previous habits, not providing disciplined deductive reasoning for your charges of moral violations against your cult of self.
You have demonstrated, however, another obvious characteristic of Atheism: Atheists are never wrong; and their rightness is a moral characteristic which is to be defended in terms of accusations of Hate. Hate is the Atheist’s moral equivalent of blasphemy and heresy, and thereby appparently needs no justification for its use in conversation.
” Right. Get a fucking clue. Oh let me guess, somehow this isn't rationally stated? Ya, that's why I want a third party.”
You have not addressed the original issue. What you have done is to turn up an error I made (and have admitted) and then you have used that to refocus the conversation and deviate from your original obligation to support your original charge logically using known rational processes.
Also, you will not be allowed to post any more comments which attack other commenters with stupid statements like you made above. Your behavior has not progressed from the juvenile, it appears. You have no more chances.
Finally, either you will produce rational arguments refuting my original statements, or you will post nothing more. Your purposeful disruption here won't be tolerated like it was before.
agotoco,
That incident is difficult to interpret since the content of the Atheist blogs is not given, and the article gives deference to Islam.
It seems not to be the same in regard to Atheist/Leftist incitement of one of their own, who then commits crimes against enemies of the AtheoLeft.
In this case, it is Muslims - the target of the speech - who attacked and killed the speaker, who was hacked to death in response to his speech.
This represents attacks on free speech by adherents of Islam, rather than Atheists, and is the opposite of the incitement of Atheists by Atheists to attack free speech - which is the issue in the USA.
But you are right, I can no longer find the multitude of hate tweets that filled the blogs at the time. They have evaporated.
So you are left holding an empty bag. You've got nothing to present but an empty polemic rant. No logic, no evidence. Doesn't seem like there is anything left here to refute.
Oh don't worry about Steve. I promise to not try and make him cry anymore. I'll just ignore him like the tone troll he is.. Like I should have done originally.
And still you dodge the challenge. Why? Now it is because you "only" remove posts which violate your supposed logical principles. Judge jury and ban hammer and too scared to let it go.
Like you could never be wrong.
The Chik Fil A / FRC incident speaks for itself: the AtheoLeft tolerates no breach of their moral values, which actually are moral-free, anarchic, sanctioning of all behaviors which are convenient to their anarchic principles du jour, and including death wishes against the Other.
The behaviour you say is sanctioned by the "AtheoLeft" is attempted murder. There is ZERO support for this charge. Why don't you admit when you are wrong...
You are wrong Stan. An individual atheist might endorse near anything (no different from any human of any theological position). However atheists as a group are not given to restricting free speech nor given to endorsing murder. Your accusations to the contrary are without evidence and without merit.
Are you aware of any systematic studies of left-wing and right-wing violence? And have you read them?
Well, this is ironic: Stan of all people saying things like this:
...rational discovery of true conclusions is not your point. You never tumble to errors you have made; you merely come back with other fallacies
The irony is that all of the above really applies to Stan. In my own debate with him a while ago I tried correcting some of his "errors" but he just ignored the corrections.
1) He said that I claimed to "speak for all atheists". I never did and I tried to tell him that.
2) He talked about the "absolute stinginess of atheists" after using ONE religious (Barna) study which said that religious were more generous, while ignoring the fact that I had posted more than one study that said the opposite.
3) I had said that I was pro-life and even posted a link to an atheist pro-life site yet Stan said that I didn't care "a whit" for babies and also that I and atheists in general had abortion as one of our main viewpoints!
There's also the fact that pretty much his entire blog is built around the fallacies of "consequences of belief", "ad-hominem" and "poisoning the well".
"Godless", yeah. Stan doesn't give a damn about rational discourse. When presented with facts that directly contradict his own biases, he'll just steamroll right over them, all the while pretending that it's his opponents who do so.
PS: Stan, I know you said on Dan's blog that you've banned me, but I know you will see this post before you toss it.
After George Tiller was killed by a right-wing Christian who read that Tiller was a murderer who must be stopped from a right-wing Christian website, a certain website published these statements:
George Tiller is an "assassin".
as·sas·sin [uh-sas-in] noun
1. a murderer, especially one who kills for fanatical or monetary reasons.
Abortion is "child murder". "Intervening in a murder would also be considered legal and moral, and would be considered heroism."
"There is relief" that he was killed and a "short term advantage" but "(t)he opposition is guaranteed to attempt to tar the entire moral movement as immoral by association" (with the shooting).
Are there equivent statements from Left about the wounding of the FRC guard?
But you are right, I can no longer find the multitude of hate tweets that filled the blogs at the time. They have evaporated.
So you are left holding an empty bag. You've got nothing to present but an empty polemic rant. No logic, no evidence. Doesn't seem like there is anything left here to refute.
Oh don't worry about Steve. I promise to not try and make him cry anymore. I'll just ignore him like the tone troll he is.. Like I should have done originally.
And still you dodge the challenge. Why? Now it is because you "only" remove posts which violate your supposed logical principles. Judge jury and ban hammer and too scared to let it go.
Like you could never be wrong.
The Chik Fil A / FRC incident speaks for itself: the AtheoLeft tolerates no breach of their moral values, which actually are moral-free, anarchic, sanctioning of all behaviors which are convenient to their anarchic principles du jour, and including death wishes against the Other.
The behaviour you say is sanctioned by the "AtheoLeft" is attempted murder. There is ZERO support for this charge. Why don't you admit when you are wrong...
You are wrong Stan. An individual atheist might endorse near anything (no different from any human of any theological position). However atheists as a group are not given to restricting free speech nor given to endorsing murder. Your accusations to the contrary are without evidence and without merit.
Godless, you are done here, yet again.
1. The challenge to you – which you deliberately misinterpret – was to provide logical refutation for the support of your charges of hate against me. You did not even attempt it. If you cannot do it here there is no place where you will do it. The characteristics of Atheists all seem to be present in you.
2. The hate-fest existed; there were virtually no recognitions of their own culpability. Hence, they abetted the attack.
3. Your refusal to accept responsibility for your own hate rant regarding CFA says all that needs to be said.
4. Atheists as a group, the FFRC for example, sues every small enterprise which it thinks it can bully, suppression of free speech is its goal.
Your final juvenile insult has been placed; your final dodge of your intellectual responsibility has been placed: you are gone.
Reynold,
I know you want to appear as rational and wronged, but you were anything but that, and that is why you were booted. You can't get away with ignoring your own legitimate fallacies, and yet falsely accusing your opponent of fallacies which you don't even understand, which IIRC, was your modus operandi: making up your own logic.
If you want to tell me that you have actually studied real, Aristotlian disciplined logic and want to try again, then you can do it on email and we'll try it for a while and see. But not on the blog.
Stan, I asked if you were aware of any studies of left-wing and right-wing violence?
I asked this because there have been studies done. If you read them you can have your opinion informed by actual data instead of your perception and gut feelings.
pubalco 21,
I can no longer find the tweets by the Left which accompanied the CFA incident. I don't know the answer to your question. All I have is my memory of the death wishes, even as I recall, written on at least one CFA outlet wall. I should have kept records of them to guard against their scrubbing.
I'm trying very hard to move the conversation away from your gut feelings and recollection and towards data and studies.
The FBI and West Point's Combating Terrorism Center have done some studies on left wing and right wing violence if you are looking for a beginning.
stunned,
Yes. The University of Maryland and the Dept of Homeland Security have compiled violence data here:
http://start.umd.edu/start/publications/research_briefs/LaFree_Bersani_HotSpotsOfUSTerrorism.pdf
Leftwing violence far outstripped Rightwing and religious violence together when totalled over the decades from the 1970s to 2008; however, almost all violence by the Left was in the 70s, and violence by both sides has been almost zero for the last decade. Unfortunately, there is a category called “single issue” which contains issues like anti-abortion, anti-catholic, anti-nuclear together in the same category, thus blurring the lines between religious and leftwing violence, and obscuring the relative values.
I’m not sure what else is available as a reputable study of violence sources.
The FBI did a study too. Left-winger tend to damage property. Right-wingers tend to murder. Right-wingers kill an average of 30 people a year for political reasons since the 1990's. Lefties? Less than one.
I'm not surprised you didn't find these violent tweets. The vandalism was the phrase "TASTES LIKE HATE". So did you recognise the right-wing blog I quoted?
How many studies did you scroll past before you found the University of Maryland one that included the 1970's?
Did you open up West Point's Combating Terrorism Center (Yes, that West Point) and read:
Introduction
In the last few years, and especially since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-
identify with the far-right of American politics.
and think "Oh, West Point must be too left wing. Better ignore this."?
Did you purposely pick a study that ended in 2008 keeping in mind the introduction to the West Point study? It looks like you see only what you want to see and you feel the need to win conversations instead of examining the facts. We might both be Christian but these kind of things soil your credibility.
@Stan: Thank you. "tone troll" is a new one to me. But I still have a lot to learn about the internet. And coming from a fellow like godless, it's probably a compliment!
He's really quite good at flinging the dirt, but the shouting never seems to distract you like it does me. I find it difficult to read his posts all the way through - dripping with contempt and an almost knee-jerk rejection of any response you make or even a demand to address the original issue before 'moving on'.
Unfortunately, 'moving on' seems to be his most-used tactic. Reminds me of the saying "if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". My hat is off to you for being able to follow his rants and stick to the topic while not losing your cool.
I want to be able to do that someday.
God is One said,
"Did you purposely pick a study that ended in 2008 keeping in mind the introduction to the West Point study?"
The Homeland Security/University of Maryland was the first/only one I came across in a quick search, and seemded reputable enough. I haven't seen the study you are referencing as contradictory data. I will look at it soon. If you think the Homeland Security/University of Maryland data is wrong or biased, why so? Because it doesn't reflect your own bias?
Pubalco,
Here are the three posts I wrote on Tiller.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/06/tiller-yet-again.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/06/george-tiller-assassination-of-assassin.html
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2009/06/killing-tiller-slate-spins-murder.html
Your word-chopping is disingenuous and dishonest, and you have shown nothing to contradict anything I actually said. If you approve of late-term abortions, then Tiller was a hero to you, of course. However, the Left usually takes the position that abortion is a necessary abomination which should be scarce and for the “woman’s healthcare”, and so on. Tiller killed third termers that could have been delivered by caesarian, and allowed to live their lives. Or even delivered normally by waiting a few more weeks.
Kindly refute that.
Then show where I approved of murdering him.
There are many stereotypes and misconceptions about the care Dr. Tiller provided. The later abortion care he offered was for women who had very poor fetal prognosis, babies with anomalies. Saying these babies were viable is misleading. Most of the later procedures were done for babies with illnesses that were not conducive to life. The few infants that would have survived delivery would have had drastically shortened lives filled with numerous surgeries and endless suffering. The week I had my procedure there was a woman whose baby had its internal organs developed outside of its body. Another woman’s baby had no brain. There was never any hope for those babies—there was no miracle that would have saved them.
I was forced to make an agonizing choice for a baby my husband and I wanted and loved very much. This was NOT a form of birth control. I chose the lesser of the evils and did what any loving parent should—eased the suffering of an innocent baby. Forcing my baby to live would have been cruel. That was a deeply personal decision and one I will gladly sort out with my maker in the hereafter. I would gladly offer my soul to protect my child.
I do not take pride in what I was forced to do but I carry no shame. In a perfect world my baby would have come home to a family that wanted them very much. It was not a situation I took lightly. I will also mourn this loss the remainder of my life.
Dr. Tiller was the only doctor who accepted my particular case due to my own physical complications. Dr. Tiller is my hero, he not only saved my life but saved my family. I was fully prepared to end my own life to protect my baby from a life of misery. Dr. Tiller offered a service that although much despised is also critical in a civilized society.
The man who shot him is a coward. He ran away like a thief in the night, too afraid to stand tall for his principles. Dr. Tiller was a man who stood up for what he believed in without fear. I will never forget him or the profound impact he had on me and my family for the rest of our lives.
Liberal hate tweets from homo supporters.
https://twitter.com/Waqar27/status/230817051931983872
https://twitter.com/lizzwinstead/statuses/230660947650412544
Anonymous,
Without a moniker I'm not sure whether to take your message seriously. Anonymity is like running away too.
However, assuming that your story is real, I offer my condolences. I have lost chidren and grandchildren, too, to miscarriages and to elective abortions.
And I ask why you did not get the medical services of a reputable hospital? If you were refused medical services, on what basis were you refused? I ask because many birth defects can be corrected these days, although not all, presumably. Even complete encephalitis of the brain does not mean guaranteed mental deficiency (yes I can back that up).
And I'm interested in how do you know the history of the pregnancies that Tiller ended? There is no oversight by government decree, unlike at hospitals.
Tiller was credited with pioneering partial birth abortions of viable babies, and avoided the kansas law against that by his prior injection of digoxin to kill the baby first, so that he could claim to be delivering a stillborn. The Kansas law had been passed in response to Tiller's original killing of the baby as it was born.
Tiller also ran an adoptions scheme out of his office, placing live born aborted "fetuses" with only people who support abortions. His adoption business was lucrative, but he wanted to focus on abortions and gave it up.
And Tiller also is accused by insiders of selling body parts.
One baby was in the birth position, so Tiller injected the head; the baby lived and was taken to the hospital where it was thought to be terminal and was left in a bassinet to die. 24 hours later, the baby was still alive, even without hydration or nourishment. A nurse took pity on the baby who came to be adopted and named Sarah. She died at the age of 5 due to the treatment of Tiller.
Tiller would not release records to the states Atty General, and when the issue went to the Kansas Supreme Court, Tiller filled two large shredding trucks with documents to be shredded. The previous week Tiller filled dumpsters with shredded documents placed into "infectious waste" bags, and the shredding was discovered by police investigating the apparent violation of medical waste disposal laws.
This and many other incidents which were sourced from employees of Tiller and news accounts are found here:
http://www.operationrescue.org/files/Tiller%20Report%20II.pdf
Note: This account varies considerably from the wiki-abortion-apologetics sites, which try to canonized Tiller and ignore any factual accounts of his fight to remain untouchable and unaccountable, not to mention accounts of his actual activities behind the fence and guards.
Operation Rescue? Operation Rescue were involved in Tiller's murder. Scott Roeder, Tiller's murderer was a member. Why would you discount more reasonable reports for a report by them?
Scott Roeder, Tiller's murderer, had received Tiller's location from Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor. He had her phone number on the dash of his car.
Sullenger was involved in bombings. She is still senior policy advisor to Operation Rescue.
You are siding with the terrorists.
It's interesting to see the rationale for not looking at data. In this case we have on one side, Tiller, who killed at least one young woman in his abortion factory and sent others to the hospital to save them from dy ing inside his compound; and on the other side we have a woman who bombed a clinic and served time for it.
In other words, we have a person who killed one non-fetus plus thousands of pre-borns and nearly-borns who is a hero to the Left, and a woman who served time for bombing a clinic (no casualties that are reported there).
Now which one is the terrorist and which one is the hero?
The hero of course is the bloodiest one, the one who operates without oversight, inside a locked compound which has the smoke of burning human flesh pouring from it.
The terrorist is the other one. We cannot look at that data, because it is pre-labeled: terrorist. Presumably including the whistleblower employee stories from inside the abortion compound.
If it is contrary to the "hero" narrative, the data cannot be seen, only condemned, so that it won't be considered.
And the terrorist is further associated with the Tiller killer, because of a phone number in the killer's car, a fact apparently not useful for anything other than guilt by association via Rachel Maddow and the screams from the abortion lobby. No legal action seems to have been produced by this, but the internet condemnation is complete.
The support of the abortion promoters for killing the infant right up to and including birth canal transit is apparent; and so is the condemnation of any opposition to such killing.
It is an obvious New Right to kill whoever gets defined into the wrong category. That makes it just like the cavalry and the Indians; the Indians were just the wrong category, and it was immoral of them to object, much less fight back.
Of course the fetus never fights back. And fetus champions are just terrorists. So the eugenics cavalry rides on, and on.
So in summary:
If you disagree with someone then a tweet of "I hope you choke on your chicken" is violent and evil.
But if you agree with someone then you'll still use their resources and support them even if they plant bombs and shoot people.
also stunned:
A very prejudiced and prejudicial "summary". You purposefully ignore the point being made: The Left assigns guilt from a point of view of having abetted and caused a death; but the Left takes no reponsibility having done the same thing. Further, the Left completely ignores deaths which are "good" deaths, those deaths which fit into the ideology.
It's not unlike the Leftist wearing a Che Guevara tea shirt, and painting "peace" on a wall: by ignoring the tortures and murders that Che personally did, the Leftist shows his actual beliefs, despite whatever comes out of his mouth and spray paint can.
The AtheoLeft no more cares about human death than it cares about humility in the face of logical conclusions. Except of course when it is one of their own icons, a purveyor of death who published papers on how to do it and evade the law.
What you have done is to evade the issue of the content of the data being presented, by attacking - not the data - but the source of the data. Hiding the reality from view is not a viable argument against reality.
The AtheoLeft is so convinced of the rectitude of their death system that they are "stunned" at any criticism of it.
Well excuse me if I think an angry tweet is not as bad as shooting someone in the face.
Bombings, arson, shootings, murder and kidnappings are not the kind of "criticism" you should be supporting.
@also stunned
Have you not read the links that Stan has provided concerning left and right-wing terrorism?
Dear Atheism Analyzed. I was reading somewhere on this blog a comment aobut how the atehists set up an impossible request for vidence when then will accept nothing less than material evidence for god, who is immaterial or something along those lines.
can you help me find it.
Post a Comment