Does religion engender reaction

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I think it is a product of your religious beliefs and, as a result, what else can we expect to come from your religious beliefs? I think you oppose abortion as a result of your faith, and, as such, see no reason why there may not be other products of your religion that contradict leftist politics.

an assumption of that magnitude would constitute a "leap of faith" on your part, as well as generally straying away from the topic in question .... if you want to discuss the effects of religion in terms of socialism then i would suggest that you start another thread instead of detracting from this discussion on restrictions because as far as i am aware no one here has been restrcited because they are christian .....

this looks like flamebait to me, you have managed to draw religion into a converstation and blantantly act in a discriminitory fashion. the issue of religion is not in question here, the issue of restrictions relating to abortion is ....

this seems to be a tactic employeed frequently by unconditional supporters of abortions (especially on the left), that is, associating religion with all the negatives they see in the world and using these negatives to also discredit religion .....

anyway ... save for a thread on religion not one on abortions and restrictions ....

i happen to attend church services twice a year .... does that make me a bad marxist or a bad christian ....?

i also happen to believe in abortions, but not in any inherient or natural "right" to them, abortions should be gauged by their uliity in terms of society not any "morals" or other imposed view upon them .....

Edric O. said it best:


Here is the kind of utilitarian argument I use:

What is the difference between a situation where abortion is legal and one where abortion is illegal? Well, if abortion is illegal, some of the women who wanted abortions will carry their pregnancies to term, going through all the associated suffering and likely ruining both their lives and the lives of their children. Others will seek illegal, unsafe abortions. These are the negative consequences. What about the positive consequences? Is there any benefit to be gained from restricting access to abortion? Well, some children will be born who would not otherwise have been born. But this cannot be considered good in itself - if it were true that we should take legal measures to increase the number of children who are born, why stop at abortion? Why not ban contraception, or, for that matter, encourage people to have unsafe sex so as to produce as many new human beings as possible?

Obviously such a thing would be inhuman (not to mention suicidal for the human species in the long run). The idea that creating a new human life is always desirable leads to unacceptable conclusions, and must be rejected. So it is not in fact always desirable to maximize the number of new humans being born. So there is nothing inherently bad about the fact that legal abortion will reduce the number of births.

Thus, in fact, laws restricting abortion will provide no benefit and will end up causing significant suffering for women - and working class women will be affected above all. So we should not have laws restricting abortion.



that being said, i think the number of abortions shows the failure of society to provide proper education and contraception to women and men .....

[luxemburg89]

if you want to discuss the effects of religion in terms of socialism

*sigh* So you can't see the relevance?? If he has reactionary beliefs with regard to abortion, that run along with the fact he is a christian (which is a reactionary belief), what is to say he does not harbour other reactionary beliefs as a result of his religion?

Also, what would the point of baiting him be, he's already restricted isn't he?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:31 pm
an assumption of that magnitude would constitute a "leap of faith"
What the hell are you babbling about? "Leap of faith"? He's simply reasoning that, because Christianity especially and religion in general engender reactionary and often misogynistic beliefs that this is where Freakazoid is getting his fucked up views form. I see no leap of faith, steps of logic maybe.


on your part, as well as generally straying away from the topic in question .... if you want to discuss the effects of religion in terms of socialism then i would suggest that you start another thread instead of detracting from this discussion on restrictions because as far as i am aware no one here has been restrcited because they are christian .....

Tell you what if this discussion gets out of hand I'll split it.


this looks like flamebait to me, you have managed to draw religion into a converstation and blantantly act in a discriminitory fashion. the issue of religion is not in question here, the issue of restrictions relating to abortion is ....

Fucking hell, how can anyone be this dense? The member in question is religious, their religion is notorious for having a reactionary line on women now what kind of special do you have to be to draw no connection whatsoever?


this seems to be a tactic employeed frequently by unconditional supporters of abortions (especially on the left), that is, associating religion with all the negatives they see in the world and using these negatives to also discredit religion .....

Look, whatever the reason for the chubby you have over religion you don't have to assume our single goal in pointing out the fucking obvious is to discredit religion - religion discredits itself.


i happen to attend church services twice a year .... does that make me a bad marxist or a bad christian ....?

Probably both, personally I think it makes you a bit of a twat - especially if you turn up without believing in god and intending to mooch some free wine.


i also happen to believe in abortions,

Anyone can believe in abortions because they exist unlike God. No one gives a shit if you believe in abortions, it's if you agree with them that is in question.


but not in any inherient or natural "right" to them, abortions should be gauged by their uliity in terms of society not any "morals" or other imposed view upon them .....

The question of abortions begins and ends at a woman's autonomy.


Edric O. said it best:

Let's get one thing straight Edric O has never in his long and irritating membership managed to pu anything best, this is because Ederic O is the kind of person that, when feeling particularly ambitious, strives for mediocrity and fails. Thankfully TC kicked his (metaphorical) head in over this particular Cleveland steamer of a post so we need not dwell on it.


that being said, i think the number of abortions shows the failure of society to provide proper education and contraception to women and men .....

Among other things, yes but it is the height of naivety to believe that with the best possible education and contraception distribution there will be no abortions.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

this is where Freakazoid is getting his fucked up views form.


what is to say he does not harbour other reactionary beliefs as a result of his religion?

what is to say he does?

did he once use his religion to defend his supposed views on abortion? you assume too much ..... what he said was :


it is because that I believe in a God that I feel that it is my duty to help the poor and to be an anarchist.



steps of logic maybe.

fraid not jerry, when you basically vomit up a response without infomration on the subject in question you are not able to be logical .... especially you


if this discussion gets out of hand I'll split it.


i have absolutely no faith in your abilities as a moderator, more then likely you will split the thread when it suits you ... or, perhaps more accurately, when you are unable to argue your positions ....


The member in question is religious, their religion is notorious for having a reactionary line on women now what kind of special do you have to be to draw no connection whatsoever?

not all muslims are sucicide bombers and not all christians are crusaders, you need to quit thinking in black and white terms .... you would think that a member of the "revolutionary left" would be able to diffrenciate between the general and the specific

do you honestly believe that all people whom hold religious beliefs have reactionary beliefs towards women?


fucking obvious

the only thing that is obvious is that you have managed to convice yourself that stereotyping people based on their beliefs is not only acceptable but also 100% correct ....


I think it makes you a bit of a twat

come on phil, now who is being misogynistic? if you gave a damn about womens rights you would have some respect and not lash out with gender specific insults such as this .....


No one gives a shit if you believe in abortions, it's if you agree with them that is in question.


look this up johnny,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/believe

to say i believe in abortions meaning that I credit the idea with veracity ....

you and no one else can tell me what to agree with .... i "believe" (3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.) that having abortions legal is better then them being restricted and illegal ... but i don't agree with abortions because of some fictional natural "rights" that women have and i definatly don't agree with you


question of abortions begins and ends at a woman's autonomy.

why do persons like yourself and TC insist on making this into idealist jargon?



we need not dwell on it.

why is utility not as valid a reason to support abortion as so the so called "natural right" of women .... especially since they both entail a belief that abortions should be legal and available .....

i would love to hear your explaination as to where these "natural rights" come from


it is the height of naivety to believe that with the best possible education and contraception distribution there will be no abortions.

can you even read? obviously there will not be zero abortions and that was never suggested but most will agree that fewer abortions in favor of preventing pregnency (through safer sex practices) is a positive goal ....


If he has reactionary beliefs with regard to abortion

allegedly ..... the evidence is shaky from where i'm standing, just as it has been for several of the recent restrictions .....



he's already restricted isn't he?

yes, and it seems that some "true" revolutionaries here want to keep it that way .....

how many of the restricted members actually get unrestricted?

anyway ... stick to the topic ... leave religion out of it .... it is not relevent to the debate on his restriction

[freakazoid]

You don't think freakazoid crazy religious beliefs have anything to do with his views on abortion?

You know, you are right. My religious beliefs have everything to do with my views on abortion. I believe that by being a Christian I must be an anarchist, and by being an anarchist it is wrong to make abortion illegal.


He's simply reasoning that, because Christianity especially and religion in general engender reactionary and often misogynistic beliefs that this is where Freakazoid is getting his fucked up views form.

If by "fucked up" views you mean being an anarchist, then yes, I hold some pretty "fucked up" views. <_<

[freakazoid]

So am I. I have said this before, because I am a Christian I feel that it is my duty to be an anarchist.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I am a Christian I feel that it is my duty to be an anarchist.

even if you choose not to believe that freakazoid is being truthful in this instance, do you accept the possibility that persons are able to intrepret certain scriptures or religious teachings to arrive at the conclusion above or one similar to it?

is it an absolute impossibility that christians or other religions teachings are able to logically justify the pursuit of leftist politics?

we all know that presently many churches choose not to voice some of the most progressive aspects of scripture, essentially these portions are simply left out ....

do the progressive or left leaning portions of the scriptures have any value at all?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

do the progressive or left leaning portions of the scriptures have any value at all?

No, beacause they are scripture. Any text claiming to be perfect can be instantly disregarded, because it is lying to you. And it just defeats the point of leftism. We want humanity to move for it&#39;s own sake, not just because it&#39;s been ordered to by a self-evidently dishonest millenia-old book of lies.

-Alex

[freakazoid]

No, beacause they are scripture.

So you are saying that if it said that 2 + 2 = 4 then you would stop believing that simply because it is in scripture? Also you know that there are many historical things now known because it is in scripture.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Any text claiming to be perfect can be instantly disregarded

while that may be the rhetoric that you are familiar with a quick historical glance at the history of any major religion shows that scriptures and church practices been systematically editied and built upon by various persons and institutions within the church ....

think about the Council of Florence, Jan Huss, Martin Luther, Shah Ishmael, and Vatican II .....

obviously the scriptures are not infalliable since we realize they were written by men, obviously it is within the realm of a person or institution to change the way these scriptures are interpreted ....

much as in the way any theoretical document are interpreted diffrently according to the conditions of their time ....

i would be interested in hearing your response to this question:



I am a Christian I feel that it is my duty to be an anarchist.



even if you choose not to believe that freakazoid is being truthful in this instance, do you accept the possibility that persons are able to intrepret certain scriptures or religious teachings to arrive at the conclusion above or one similar to it?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Yes, but you can also justify slavery with it, denying women rights, homophobia etc.......

ok .... just wanted to be clear there ....

so in other words the scriptures are not inheriently non-leftist in themselves it is peoples interpretation of them that you see as the problem .....


the Bible is a work of fiction it is a bunch of made up nonsense.

it might be more accurate to call it "fiction based upon historical events" as many of the events depicted (such as wars, weather, the names of leaders, and many other instances) are independantly verifiable ....

i would put the Bible or the Koran somewhere in the realm of epic poetry, such as the Aeneid, the Nibelungenlied, or the Odyssey ..... and i would not call these nonsense, they are merely stories that often have at their core a moral dilemma or lesson ....

do you see fiction as worthless?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

the problem i have is people reading fiction and thinking it is religion its a joke.

have you read The Monkey Wrench Gang?

religion is obviously one interpretation to be drawn from scriptures, could anarchism (as Freakazoid suggests) be another?

and if you believe this to be possible, would you still say that reading scriptures (or any work of historical fiction) and interpreting it as a personal moral code or socio-political stance is inheriently wrong?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

No i have never read that.

you should, its good



i am not sure the Bible full of contradictions and verses that can have multiple meanings.

please clarify .... do you mean that you don&#39;t belive other interpretations are possible?


Not if it is just a moral code but you think you need to live by a moral code based on hopes of getting into heaven

so its ok to take moral lessons from the scriptures but not to believe that those morals will get you into heaven?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by NorthStarRepu[email protected] 22, 2007 04:47 am

Not if it is just a moral code but you think you need to live by a moral code based on hopes of getting into heaven

so its ok to take moral lessons from the scriptures but not to believe that those morals will get you into heaven?
It is far, far better to build your own morality based on logic than to take your ideas of right and wrong from a quasi-historical storybook for ancient desert dwellers.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So you are saying that if it said that 2 + 2 = 4 then you would stop believing that simply because it is in scripture? Also you know that there are many historical things now known because it is in scripture.

Don&#39;t be ridiculous. You&#39;re twisting what I&#39;m saying, and you know it. 2+2=4 is an independent fact. If it were merely in scripture, and did not exist without reference to scripture, then I would disregard it. Not disbelieve, disregard.

-Alex

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 22, 2007 07:34 am--> (Jazzratt @ June 22, 2007 07:34 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 04:47 am

Not if it is just a moral code but you think you need to live by a moral code based on hopes of getting into heaven

so its ok to take moral lessons from the scriptures but not to believe that those morals will get you into heaven?
It is far, far better to build your own morality based on logic than to take your ideas of right and wrong from a quasi-historical storybook for ancient desert dwellers. [/b]
Even if such a thing were possible, it would still have, at its base, the unprovable axiom that logic is the proper method for ascertaining morality. Thus the very idea is a contradiction.

[BlessedBesse]

I can&#39;t tell if you guys are trying to have an honest debate or are just waving your dicks around.

The scripture is up to interpretation. Some people claim it&#39;s perfect and should be literally interpreted, but one should hold that against those people, not the scripture itself.

Likewise logic and rational thought can lead to many different conclusions. One can use logic to rationalize any number of inhumane or idiotic things. It&#39;s not like rational thought is pointing towards a singular model.

I think people from both strictly religious and strictly scientific camps need to lighten up and realize that their model worship is causing idiocy.


I can&#39;t help but shake the feeling that whenever someone is aiming to destroy another&#39;s worldview (ie "science" or "christianity"), it&#39;s just a bunch of primate dick waving. Like the destroyer is trying to feel higher than others by "proving" that he is "right".

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Some people claim it&#39;s perfect and should be literally interpreted, but one should hold that against those people, not the scripture itself.

exactly&#33;

there is no reason to discard scripture because it is associated with religion, the people that interpret that scriptures in a reactionary way are problematic, the scriptures do not create a single interpretation which is why we have numerous denominations and diocese as well as diffrently editied versions of the scriptures .....


Divinely written my ass more like piss poorly written.

have you ever read an actual book?


One can use logic to rationalize any number of inhumane or idiotic things. It&#39;s not like rational thought is pointing towards a singular model.


100% yes.

which is why although many claim to adhere to marxism we have both numerous camps and factions that each each argue their interpretation is the most correct ....


freakazoid can read a verse and interpretate it one way i can read the same verse and get a total opposite interpretation.

why is this a problem?



primate dick waving.


well, i&#39;m really not sure why it is so difficult for people to see the diffrences between the actual scriptures and the way (often reactionary) that certain religious leaders or others interpret them ....

which is why i would further stress the point that freakazoid or any other person could interpret the scriptures to mean that:



it is because that I believe in a God that I feel that it is my duty to help the poor and to be an anarchist.

so i submit that religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.

[luxemburg89]

I can&#39;t help but shake the feeling that whenever someone is aiming to destroy another&#39;s worldview (ie "science" or "christianity"), it&#39;s just a bunch of primate dick waving. Like the destroyer is trying to feel higher than others by "proving" that he is "right".

What about if that person&#39;s worldview is Capitalism?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

What about if that person&#39;s worldview is Capitalism?


thats not what we are discussing here, we are discussing possible interpretation of religion and religious teachings .....

if you want to discuss the possible diffrent interpretations of capitalism then that is a diffrent thread, i would say that capitalism is reactionary although i would be willing to look into it .... what about a capitalist that only employs himself like the owner of a website, an independant plumber, or a family farmer?

but seriously that should be another discussion i am much more interested in knowing if you agree or disagree with this statement:


religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.

[BlessedBesse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:22 pm

I can&#39;t help but shake the feeling that whenever someone is aiming to destroy another&#39;s worldview (ie "science" or "christianity"), it&#39;s just a bunch of primate dick waving. Like the destroyer is trying to feel higher than others by "proving" that he is "right".

What about if that person&#39;s worldview is Capitalism?
Yes, a lot of ideological warfare is primate dick waving, regardless of what the subject matter is. It&#39;s hysterical to watch, especially when you realize that a lot of people around here aren&#39;t actually trying to improve things so much as to prove that they&#39;re right. It&#39;s hysterical.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by BlessedBesse+June 23, 2007 04:07 am--> (BlessedBesse &#064; June 23, 2007 04:07 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 10:22 pm

I can&#39;t help but shake the feeling that whenever someone is aiming to destroy another&#39;s worldview (ie "science" or "christianity"), it&#39;s just a bunch of primate dick waving. Like the destroyer is trying to feel higher than others by "proving" that he is "right".

What about if that person&#39;s worldview is Capitalism?
Yes, a lot of ideological warfare is primate dick waving, regardless of what the subject matter is. It&#39;s hysterical to watch, especially when you realize that a lot of people around here aren&#39;t actually trying to improve things so much as to prove that they&#39;re right. It&#39;s hysterical. [/b]
What, exactly, are you contributing to this thread except your weird phallus obsession and a load of holier-than-thou sniping?

[BlessedBesse]

just callin&#39; it like I sees it Mr. Mod sir.

a couple people trying to make points, and doing so very well
and a bunch of kids trying to feel like tough revolutionaries

[NorthStarRepublicML]

consequently, aside from the penis dicussion, i would appreciate hearing persons (especially jazzaratt and luxemberg99) thoughts on this statement:



religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.


i believe this is the core of the arguement that we have been having, not merely in relation to certain members being restricted, but in general .....

[luxemburg89]

consequently, aside from the penis dicussion, i would appreciate hearing persons (especially jazzaratt and luxemberg99) thoughts on this statement:


consequently?? As a consequence of what&#33;? Also it&#39;s Jazzratt not Jazzaratt, and Luxemburg89 not Luxemberg99, that&#39;s three times you&#39;ve done that now. Anyway on with the statement.


religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.


You have completely misunderstoof what I have been talking about. I never once said it was guaranteed did I? I said the chances were HIGHER, not that it was DEFINITE. I am also not stereotyping. Freakazoid holds a reactionary belief with regard to abortion. If he is reactionary on an issue as serious as this, surely that SUGGESTS that he will probably be reactionary on other, perhaps less serious yet still important, issues. That is my concern. I expect you&#39;ll still disagree but you&#39;ll just be repeating yourself.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I am also not stereotyping. Freakazoid holds a reactionary belief with regard to abortion. If he is reactionary on an issue as serious as this, surely that SUGGESTS that he will probably be reactionary on other, perhaps less serious yet still important, issues.

how is that not stereotyping? because you seem to be confused here are a couple definitions of stereotyping:


Holding beliefs about people that places them in categories lessening chances of interaction and diminishing potential for recognizing and accepting differences. Stereotypes affect what a person thinks and believes about others, as well as how she or he behaves toward them.


is the habit of attaching an uncritical, uncomplimentary or generalized label to a person, race, idea, or the like. For example, Jews were stereotyped as money-hungry.


Creating an oversimplified image of a particular group of people, usually by assuming that all members of the group are alike.



A special form of categorical response; and membership in that category is sufficient to evoke the judgement that the individual possesses all the attributes belonging to that category. An over-generalized image of a group.



In modern usage, a stereotype is a simplified mental picture of an individual or group of people who share certain characteristic (or stereotypical) qualities. The term is often used in a negative sense, and stereotypes are seen by many as undesirable beliefs which can be altered through education and/or familiarisation. Stereotypes are common in the world of drama, where they are often used as a form of dramatic shorthand.

ok frank, just to clear things up .... you are stereotyping you have assigned freakazoid to a catagory and also assumed that he embodies stereotypical traits associated with that catagory .... you did not treat him as an individual but as a member of a group without individual characteristics and beliefs .....


religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.

so you agree with this? yes or no?

[freakazoid]

Freakazoid holds a reactionary belief with regard to abortion.

I do?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 08:18 pm

Freakazoid holds a reactionary belief with regard to abortion.

I do?
For fucks sake, are you still here?

[luxemburg89]

QUOTE
religious teaching are not 100% guaranteed to produce reactionaries, and thus to discriminate and stereotype persons based on their religion, as many persons had earlier in this thread and in others, is unnecessary and further alienates persons from one another.



so you agree with this? yes or no?

Yes I agree with that statement. However, if you&#39;ll read properly for once I said the CHANCES are higher. If you hold a reactionary belief in one instance, the CHANCES are higher that you will hold others. I&#39;m not saying this is exclusively true.

Also, on a side issue, you cannot understand why we would not allow members to view topics in the CC about them? Well for one it may unnecessarily upset them, particularly if the CC votes in their favour, they would still know which members had voted against them, which would create splits in the site. Equally if a member knew they were under discussion for racism, sexism, elitism etc they could edit their posts, or start altering their behaviour on the site to make themselves seem something they aren&#39;t, where they should, in fact, be restricted for racism?
D O Y O U C O M P R E H E N D ?


ok frank, just to clear things up

Let me see if I can guess your name. I think you are probably an....Oswald? no, no you are most definetely a...Knobleak&#33; *courtesy of Jazzratt insults*.


you did not treat him as an individual but as a member of a group without individual characteristics and beliefs

Oh I&#39;m very sorry. I forgot it was evocative of left-wing politics to defend the rights of individual reactionaries.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+June 20, 2007 03:47 pm--> (BurnTheOliveTree @ June 20, 2007 03:47 pm)
do the progressive or left leaning portions of the scriptures have any value at all?

No, beacause they are scripture. Any text claiming to be perfect can be instantly disregarded, because it is lying to you. And it just defeats the point of leftism. We want humanity to move for it&#39;s own sake, not just because it&#39;s been ordered to by a self-evidently dishonest millenia-old book of lies.

-Alex [/b]
You seem to believe that any sort of Scripture should be disregarded on the grounds that it presents us with simple axiomatic statements. Things are good or bad just because "God says so", and you believe that such a view is unacceptable. But surely, "God says so" is no different from any other axiomatic statement. If you ask the question "why" enough times, you will eventually get down to axioms. There is no way to avoid them. Christians reveal their axioms for the whole world to see, and for this we are often considered simple-minded. But at least we are aware that all ethical thought is based on axioms, which is more than can be said about most atheists. When you get down to it, there are some things that you believe to be good or bad "just because".


Jazzratt
It is far, far better to build your own morality based on logic than to take your ideas of right and wrong from a quasi-historical storybook for ancient desert dwellers.
Nonsense. Logic is a way to get from A to B. It does not provide you with a starting point - that is something you must find by other means. And the is-ought problem is insurmountable. There is no way - no way - to derive ethical statements from simple observation of the physical universe. There is nothing in the universe that can tell us what is good and what is evil.

And I see no reason why a conception of good and evil that you simply made up in your own head should be superior to one that is found in a "quasi-historical storybook for ancient desert dwellers".

***

Now, getting back on topic, many atheists - perhaps all the atheists on this forum - believe that the Bible is full of contradictions and can be used to justify almost anything. Very well then. Let us assume that the Bible is completely false and inherently contradictory. We know that a false statement can imply anything, so yes, the Bible can be used to justify almost anything. But in that case, the Bible should have a neutral, or random influence, not an influence that is reactionary most of the time. If the Bible can be used to justify anything, then it can be used to justify revolutionary opinions as much as reactionary ones.

[freakazoid]

For fucks sake, are you still here?

Nope, I&#39;m a figment of your imagination, :P


You are lying there was an abortion thread opened in the learning forum by Rhyknow in which you state your real beliefs anyone who wants to can easyly find freakazoid post its the last one on page 2. And i am sure you will try to twist that one around to.


I don&#39;t think that you have read any of my posts in the unfair restiction thread. <_<

[freakazoid]

What that you it said but didn&#39;t mean it? Please this has happened twice now. So i am supposed to think it was a mistake twice now?

What has happened twice now?

[freakazoid]

You said that this has happened twice. What is the other time?

[freakazoid]

I did? Do you ever back up any of your statements? When you said that I originally said that abortion is murder you didn&#39;t even provide a link, which is here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66729 And now you do not say what I said to LSD, just that I said it. Here are my conversations with LSD regarding this issue.

Me, May 30, 2007 10:50 am

I have just found out that this morning that I am restricted, and I was wondering why? I didn&#39;t even recieve any warning that I was, I didn&#39;t recieve any messages saying that I was going to be or why I was being restricted. I found out the hard way by trying to post a message in the Anti-Minute Man Project thread and it brought up a mesage saying that I don&#39;t have permission. Could you explaine to me why I am being restricted?

LSD, June 05, 2007 02:54 am

QUOTE
I have just found out that this morning that I am restricted, and I was wondering why? I didn&#39;t even recieve any warning that I was, I didn&#39;t recieve any messages saying that I was going to be or why I was being restricted. I found out the hard way by trying to post a message in the Anti-Minute Man Project thread and it brought up a mesage saying that I don&#39;t have permission. Could you explaine to me why I am being restricted?


see:
QUOTE (in Can Religion Be Positive? thread)
I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.

me, May 31, 2007 10:04 am

QUOTE
QUOTE
I have just found out that this morning that I am restricted, and I was wondering why? I didn&#39;t even recieve any warning that I was, I didn&#39;t recieve any messages saying that I was going to be or why I was being restricted. I found out the hard way by trying to post a message in the Anti-Minute Man Project thread and it brought up a mesage saying that I don&#39;t have permission. Could you explaine to me why I am being restricted?


see:
QUOTE (in Can Religion Be Positive? thread)
I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.


Why am I restricted for thinking that a fetus is a human being? Or is it the part where I said that it would be murder? In the Live Chat I had a conversation with RevMARKSman, and it would seem that I am being missunderstood. I think that it is a human being BUT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; It should not be banned, that would be bad. Causing it to be banned would cause the person to seek other ways of still getting it done, which could be very dangerous for the mother. I am not a "pro-lifer", I do not believe that it should be banned, I am an anarchist after all.

Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion if it would cause health problems? Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion if the woman ways raped? Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion before a certain period and after that she should have the child? Or are the only people to be restricted are the ones who say that a person should never be allowed to have an abortion? You have to be consistent on who you restrict, and I remember seeing a thread where there were some people who said things along these lines.

Me, June 02, 2007 07:43 pm

Hello, Haven&#39;t heard back from you, I was just wondering if you got my last message? I won&#39;t be near a computer for a week so you won&#39;t be hearing back from me for a while if you do respond back.

LSD, May 30, 2007 11:35 pm

OK, first of all, you need to understand that I had nothing to do with the decision to restrict you. It was made by the CC, democratically, all I was away. So any personal comments would be a waste of time.

That said, I think I can respond to your individual points;

QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
I have just found out that this morning that I am restricted, and I was wondering why? I didn&#39;t even recieve any warning that I was, I didn&#39;t recieve any messages saying that I was going to be or why I was being restricted. I found out the hard way by trying to post a message in the Anti-Minute Man Project thread and it brought up a mesage saying that I don&#39;t have permission. Could you explaine to me why I am being restricted?


see:
QUOTE (in Can Religion Be Positive? thread)
I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.


Why am I restricted for thinking that a fetus is a human being? Or is it the part where I said that it would be murder?


Yes, I think that&#39;s the part that got you in trouble. Murder doesn&#39;t mean "killing", it means murder , that is the deliberate and illegal taking of human life.

By equating abortion was murder you were effectively opposing abortion on demand and as such espousing the pro-life position.

Obviously that&#39;s grounds for restriction on this board.

QUOTE
In the Live Chat I had a conversation with RevMARKSman, and it would seem that I am being missunderstood. I think that it is a human being BUT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; It should not be banned, that would be bad. Causing it to be banned would cause the person to seek other ways of still getting it done, which could be very dangerous for the mother. I am not a "pro-lifer", I do not believe that it should be banned, I am an anarchist after all.

Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion if it would cause health problems? Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion if the woman ways raped? Would someone get restricted for saying that a person should only get an abortion before a certain period and after that she should have the child?


Yes, yes, and yes.

That seems to be the point that you are missing,

QUOTE
Or are the only people to be restricted are the ones who say that a person should never be allowed to have an abortion? You have to be consistent on who you restrict, and I remember seeing a thread where there were some people who said things along these lines.


I think the rules on the subject are rather clear. This board takes an unequivocal stand in support of a woman&#39;s rights to abortion on demand .

If you can&#39;t agree to that, you&#39;ll have to be restricted. That&#39;s just the way it works.

Me, June 07, 2007 01:25 pm

QUOTE

Yes, I think that&#39;s the part that got you in trouble. Murder doesn&#39;t mean "killing", it means murder , that is the deliberate and illegal taking of human life.

By equating abortion was murder you were effectively opposing abortion on demand and as such espousing the pro-life position.

Obviously that&#39;s grounds for restriction on this board.


I think that I didn&#39;t choose my words right when I said that. Like I had explained, I view it as a human being but that abortion should not be banned.

QUOTE

If you can&#39;t agree to that, you&#39;ll have to be restricted. That&#39;s just the way it works.


I didn&#39;t say that I don&#39;t agree with that, see above.

Me, June 07, 2007 01:56 pm

You said this in a thread on abortion,

QUOTE
No one is restricted on this board for not favouring abortion, supporting the criminalization of abortion, however, is an entirely different matter.


I do not support the criminalization of abortion&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Now tell me STJ, where is it that I said what you are claiming?

Also could someone tell me where i said that it should be criminalized?

[freakazoid]

So you just didn&#39;t give the abortion question alot of thought?

Yes, It had nothing to do with the purpose of the thread. The question was just thrown out there. So I didn&#39;t really put much thought into answering it.

[freakazoid]

Ah ok. I think someone should have PM you and asked you to explain before they restricted you.

:D Thank you&#33; /me hugs STJ :D
That was part of my original complaint that no one even asked me to explain myself or even tell me that I was being restricted. :(

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You seem to believe that any sort of Scripture should be disregarded on the grounds that it presents us with simple axiomatic statements. Things are good or bad just because "God says so", and you believe that such a view is unacceptable. But surely, "God says so" is no different from any other axiomatic statement. If you ask the question "why" enough times, you will eventually get down to axioms. There is no way to avoid them. Christians reveal their axioms for the whole world to see, and for this we are often considered simple-minded. But at least we are aware that all ethical thought is based on axioms, which is more than can be said about most atheists. When you get down to it, there are some things that you believe to be good or bad "just because".

You eventually get down to axioms, or you stop hunting for a morality that is objective and set in stone. Ethical rules, in my view, don&#39;t exist as your scripture dictates them. It&#39;s all much more subtle and complex than your "axiomatic statements" of absolute ethical truth. Resting on an openly arbitrary statement, like "You just shouldn&#39;t kill people, because." is really quite cowardly. It&#39;s not too difficult to see that humans have invented morality as it stands, and this alone rules out the possibility of a firm, undeniable ethical truth - they don&#39;t exist.

So in fact, I don&#39;t believe anything to be good or bad "just because". I act in accordance with various ethical rules without needing a totally solid base for doing so.

Taking the example of unmotivated murder:

A. I am happier as a person if I don&#39;t murder Joe Bloggs next door.

B. It makes rational sense to behave according to the golden rule of treating others as you wish to be treated.

C. On an emotional level, I feel some solidarity with this relative stranger, as another human struggling with life, and don&#39;t wish to further compound that already uphill struggle. That applies to his family and friends, as well. This needn&#39;t be perfectly explicable, and it needn&#39;t make perfect logical sense. It is okay for me to say that unmotivated murder is not an absolute "wrong".

D. I think that utilitarianism generally leads to a better world, and utilitarianism reccomends not murdering the poor bloke.

E. Self-preservation - I&#39;d spend my life in prison.


So I suppose other than for purely rational reasons, i.e A, B and E, what keeps me from murdering Joe is not grounded in material reality...

Pff. It&#39;s late, and I&#39;m rambling. Yeah, I just think that moral &#39;truths&#39; aren&#39;t real.

-Alex

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Yes I agree with that statement. However, if you&#39;ll read properly for once I said the CHANCES are higher.


so you are agreeing that its not 100% of religious persons are reactionaries, just most of them right ?

would you consider a man that doesn&#39;t believe that 100% of Jews are especially greedy, only that the chances of them being especially greedy are higher, to be stereotyping?


If you hold a reactionary belief in one instance, the CHANCES are higher that you will hold others.

so you admit to being baised against religious people as you continue to see them as reactionary?

so you are often stereotyping people that are religious in that you associate them with pro-life, right?


Also, on a side issue, you cannot understand why we would not allow members to view topics in the CC about them?

please stick to one topic, constantly changing the direction of your arguements and posting them in threads when not approporiate shows your lack of disipline and weakens your arguements .... i am more then happy to discuss this topic in the thread dedicated to it UNFAIR RESTRICTION ....

oh james, here is the link: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67327&st=175&hl=

noticed you decided to respond here instead .... i guess your arguements are all but defeated there anyway ....



It&#39;s not too difficult to see that humans have invented morality as it stands, and this alone rules out the possibility of a firm, undeniable ethical truth - they don&#39;t exist.

yes, i can say nothing but to say that i agree ..... there is no objective morals only interpretations .... some of these may be drawn from the scriptures or other sources but they are all equally mallable or subject to the interpretation of the observer .....

thus no scriptures are inheriently reactionary, and because all persons have diffrent interpretations of these scriptures they cannot all be considered reactionary outright, agreed?



I think that utilitarianism generally leads to a better world, and utilitarianism reccomends not murdering the poor bloke.

utility would appear to be the most logica method to determine social well being, as it relies less on moral interpretations then it does gains and losses ....

[BurnTheOliveTree]

thus no scriptures are inheriently reactionary, and because all persons have diffrent interpretations of these scriptures they cannot all be considered reactionary outright, agreed?

Well I suppose if you view it as completely and utterly interpretation, then you&#39;re right, it isn&#39;t reactionary. But it&#39;s also meaningless, since any possible meaning actually counts for nothing. You could interpret it as meaning that Delia Smith is the anti-christ. So that would once again render scripture&#39;s value null and void. :)

In some cases, scriptue seems pretty clear, too. Leviticus:


20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Seems fairly obvious, no?


utility would appear to be the most logica method to determine social well being, as it relies less on moral interpretations then it does gains and losses ....

Yay&#33; I thought I was the only one on the board. :D

-Alex

[freakazoid]

Seems fairly obvious, no?

It seems fairly obvious but, http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/...s_james_do.html (http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/things_james_do.html)

edit - fixed link. I don&#39;t know why but sometimes it shortens it and put three dots where it shortened it, :(

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The link doesn&#39;t work.

-Alex

[luxemburg89]

QUOTE
Also, on a side issue, you cannot understand why we would not allow members to view topics in the CC about them?



please stick to one topic, constantly changing the direction of your arguements and posting them in threads when not approporiate shows your lack of disipline and weakens your arguements .... i am more then happy to discuss this topic in the thread dedicated to it UNFAIR RESTRICTION ....

oh james, here is the link: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67327&st=175&hl=


I went back to the fucking topic didn&#39;t I? It was only a momentary digression&#33; Then I returned to the topic in hand. Also stop using first names on the forum, it&#39;s getting fucking annoying and it&#39;s against the guidelines.


would you consider a man that doesn&#39;t believe that 100% of Jews are especially greedy, only that the chances of them being especially greedy are higher, to be stereotyping?


Actually that stereotype is made with regard to the so-called Jewish race (as fascists would put it). A race - though I hate to segregate people into races - cannot, itself, be reactionary. However a religion, that is serving and worshipping a higher being is reactionary. Worshipping higher beings belongs in the middle ages, we are against all forms or heirarchy, we wish to abolish them. Therefore religion is reactionary, and if Freakazoid, who has displayed reactionary beliefs in the past, is more likely to us to hold other reactionary beliefs. Religion is reactionary, religious people may not be so reactionary, yet Freakazoid, as his reactionary views are those of his religion, is more likely to have other reactionary views (I am sick of repeating this to you), but this may not be the case with all christians. Religion is our political enemy, the religious people themselves may not be. I am now wandering what the point of arguing with you is.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Also stop using first names on the forum, it&#39;s getting fucking annoying and it&#39;s against the guidelines

ok Slappy, no more names .... although, i know you are slow and may not have realized, none of the names were the names of actual persons, unless i happen to be psychic ... and in that case i would appologize ....

i fail to see how using a first name (even if it isn&#39;t the persons actual name to which i am refering) is any more against the guidlines then using the word "fuck" or "twat" or by refering to others as "idiots" as many members (and mods) do ......

does anyone else have a problem with this? would you rather i replace the use of random names with "idiot" or perhaps another derogitory slur ....

nevermind ..... i can see that you are sensitive .... no more names ....I promise ... does that make it ok Slick?



that stereotype is made with regard to the so-called Jewish race (as fascists would put it).


i said nothing of the sort, you are the one that assigned a racial aspect to it ..... why?


A race - though I hate to segregate people into races - cannot, itself, be reactionary.

(I am fairly certain you will not respond to this question) how many "races" would you say there are on earth?


However a religion, that is serving and worshipping a higher being is reactionary.

so you don&#39;t include Buddists? or religions that do not include a higher being to be reactionary?


Worshipping higher beings belongs in the middle ages, we are against all forms or heirarchy, we wish to abolish them.

would you consider churches that elected their leaders from their members and controlled at the local level by the community to be reactionary?

would you consider this religion?

oh ...also on a side note ... it might be best to use the word "I" when refering to your own interpretaions instead of "we" .... we (meaining you and I) both know you do not speak for all leftists .... so if you want to keep on using it, it might be a good idea to clarify exatly who you are speaking for ...ok Zippy?


as his reactionary views are those of his religion, is more likely to have other reactionary views

i suggest that you go back and read what it means to stereotype, it is obvious you have a bais towards religion and view all those who adhere to it, in any of it&#39;s forms, to be reactionies, or more likely to be reactionaries.

are you agreeing that you stereotype religious people and see them as reactionaries?

would you say that a man who believes that not all immigrants are lazy, only most of the immigrants are lazy, is using a stereotype?

would you say that freakazoid fits your stereotype of a religious person?


(I am sick of repeating this to you)

i am sick of you repeating this to me as well, i would like you to answer my arguements and questions instead of avoiding them with petty complains (use of first fictional first names), semantics (jews as a race not a religion), and more of the same arguements .....

also the repitition tactics are tireing:


However a religion, that is serving and worshipping a higher being is reactionary.

reactionary word count: 1


Therefore religion is reactionary, and if Freakazoid, who has displayed reactionary beliefs in the past, is more likely to us to hold other reactionary beliefs.

reactionary word count: 3


Religion is reactionary, religious people may not be so reactionary, yet Freakazoid, as his reactionary views are those of his religion, is more likely to have other reactionary views

reactionary word count: 4

total reactionary word count: 1+3+4=8

and additonally when you make statements such as the following:


religion is reactionary


Religion is reactionary

you must provide more reasoning then merely your word .... forgive me for doubting you ....

your sole reasoning that religion is reactionary are these sentences (and fragment concering conclusion):


However a religion, that is serving and worshipping a higher being is reactionary. Worshipping higher beings belongs in the middle ages, we are against all forms or heirarchy, we wish to abolish them. Therefore religion is reactionary,


as pointed out earlier some religions are not hierarchical, is their heirarchical nature the only reason that you oppose them?


I am now wandering what the point of arguing with you is.

as am i ...... you bore me, have nothing new to say except to deny or ignore your stereotyping and discrimination, and don&#39;t answer questions ....

maybe you shold "wander" off to another thread ....

[luxemburg89]

i said nothing of the sort, you are the one that assigned a racial aspect to it ..... why?


You listen for once, and YOU pay attention to what I&#39;M saying for once you arrogant prick. The stereotype that jews are all greedy is made by RACISTS - not by me - based on the RACIST idea that jews are a race as well as a religion. Therefore the stereotype that all jewish people are greedy is made based on the idea, that RACISTS have, that jews are a race. This was not my personal belief I was merely correcting your mistake. You thought that it was based on the religion, when it was, in fact, based on the stereotype that the &#39;jewish race&#39; (which I am merely quoting here, not suggesting anything). I hope you understand now.


how many "races" would you say there are on earth?

In my personal opinion, there is, and should, be none. We should all be classed as the human race. When I was previously referring to race it was meant in the context that others use it. Now you&#39;ll say that wasn&#39;t evident but whatever.



would you consider churches that elected their leaders from their members and controlled at the local level by the community to be reactionary?


I&#39;m talking about God. The belief in God is master over all christianity, and Judaism and Islam (but Christianity in this example). They can be as democratic or whatever within their church, but they will always be subject to God.


it might be best to use the word "I" when refering to your own interpretaions instead of "we" .... we (meaining you and I) both know you do not speak for all leftists .... so if you want to keep on using it, it might be a good idea to clarify exatly who you are speaking for

&#39;We&#39; is meant as in the Atheist left - which is, of course, the Marxist left to which I am referring - I understand there are Marxist Christians - let&#39;s say I am speaking as an Atheist Marxist. This is amusing as you often claim to speak for all of revleft - when I can promise you that you do not.



would you say that a man who believes that not all immigrants are lazy, only most of the immigrants are lazy, is using a stereotype?


Again you are taking this out of context. Religion is a tool of the Feudal age, and the fascists - that&#39;s my personal belief. However there are good religious people, I acknowledge this. On the other hand, someone that has a history of reactionary (yes add that to the count fuckhead) religious beliefs, Freakazoid for example, is more likely to have other religious reactionary beliefs (like the world is 10,000 years old - when there is almost overbearing evidence saying it isn&#39;t) that would suggest they are not a Revolutionary Leftist. Following the bible that literally is likely to lead to other reactionary (oh and another one ;) ) beliefs, based on a literal interpretation of the bible. Do you finally understand?


you bore me, have nothing new to say except to deny or ignore your stereotyping and discrimination, and don&#39;t answer questions ....

maybe you shold "wander" off to another thread ....


I have answered questions. you have merely not accepted my answers and repeated the questions. We are going round in circles. I am prepared to abandon this, but I doubt you will, it&#39;ll wound your pride too much. I &#39;bore&#39; you that&#39;s a particularly interesting statement...

[Jazzratt]

Right this thread has got to stop, although the topic itself is interesting it is clear that this particular thread will go nowhere, except down the drain - therefore closed