next »

[electric_shaman]

Because I feel people should have two sides to every story, that's all. The post isn't for him, but for others to then balance both arguments rather than allow something stupid to remain unanswered. If they then still think i'm a dick - then fine.

I use exaggurated language, as how MegaMew points out, subtlety and subtext are easy to miss in text (especially given the intelligence of the average forum poster...) and also the best way to fight fire is with fire - giving a polite response to a hostile post gives the impression you're submitting to their view, which is not the cae at all. I viewed it with derision, so I edited my language had to reflect that.

But that's why I edit my posts, because unlike Carnivore who managed to misunderstand both mine and Mew's posts and jump in with two feet, I make the effort to re-read and gain that subtext, which is why I originally criticised you, then deleted it, because I realised you issue with my posts was not the argument, but the thought I was trolling. I went back and out more criticism in my posts on Carnivore because I re-read his post and realised he was just a massively insecure idiot.

I can understand wanting to balance the argument. I can understand your feeling that responding politely to a hostile post can seem submissive and less effective.

But to respond in such a manner only makes things worse: because the post is so hostile it's hard to read and consider the content without getting caught up in negativity of it. IMO, the best way to fight fire is not with fire but with water. Making him more angry doesn't get anywhere, doesn't aid the debate and generally makes things worse.

I mean, I agree with what you said for the most part, it's just how you said it that irks me. I can't see it being productive to anything other than inciting another similar post from him for you to flame. 

edit: also, "cae"?

[LeetFruitBoy]

To be honest steve I'm still finding signs of you silently inflating your ego in your posts. That destroys some of your respect by itself.

[Stevolutionary]

To be honest steve I'm still finding signs of you silently inflating your ego in your posts. That destroys some of your respect by itself.

Nothing to do with my ego at all - all my posts are based on defending the rights of others against prejudice, not bigging myself up. If you notice my attacks on religion are not based on the fact I believe it is false, as I believe people are entitled to believer whatever falsehoods they want, but how it judges and negatively impacts the lives of others.

I'm not gay, so where do I benefit from in this? I don't claim any of my anti-religious views are mine, I base them on science and rationalism, which I have no personal claim to. All my posts are doing is explaining the mainstream scientific and liberal consensus. I'm posting under a psuedonym to strangers - how do you boost your ego doing that!?

Just because someone confidently defends their arguments does not make them egotistical. The truth is not subjective, and stating something that has zero evidence to be an un-truth is hardly arrogant, and the reality of the facts aren't suddenly altered because you have no respect for the person stating it. I can be both right and a douchebag at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

To me if feels you think I have an ego because I state your religious beliefs are wrong, but remember - I only disbelieve in one less God than you. Thor, Zeus, Ganesh, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl - we both disbelieve them the same. Does that make you an egotist for denying what billions believe today and have through history to be the unequivocal truth? One of the central beliefs of Christianity is monothiesm, so you utterly dismiss only slightly less beliefs and believers than I do. If you're willing to slate me for that, then you're a huge hypocrite.

[LeetFruitBoy]

To be honest steve I'm still finding signs of you silently inflating your ego in your posts. That destroys some of your respect by itself.

Nothing to do with my ego at all - all my posts are based on defending the rights of others against prejudice, not bigging myself up. If you notice my attacks on religion are not based on the fact I believe it is false, as I believe people are entitled to believer whatever falsehoods they want, but how it judges and negatively impacts the lives of others.

I'm not gay, so where do I benefit from in this? I don't claim any of my anti-religious views are mine, I base them on science and rationalism, which I have no personal claim to. All my posts are doing is explaining the mainstream scientific and liberal consensus. I'm posting under a psuedonym to strangers - how do you boost your ego doing that!?

Just because someone confidently defends their arguments does not make them egotistical. The truth is not subjective, and stating something that has zero evidence to be an un-truth is hardly arrogant.

To me if feels you think I have an ego because I state your religious beliefs are wrong, but remember - I only disbelieve in one less God than you. Thor, Zeus, Ganesh, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl - we both disbelieve them the same. Does that make you an egotist for denying what billions believe today and have through history to be the unequivocal truth? One of the central beliefs of Christianity is monothiesm, so you utterly dismiss only slightly less beliefs and believers than I do. If you're willing to slate me for that, then you're a huge hypocrite.

Internet Ego and Ego Ego are two different things bud.

And it's not what you say it's how you say it... i mean look at all your posts theres at least one sentence or two that indirectly points to your "Superiority." I'm not even trying to be a dick here, Just saying what i observe.

Also the bible is fairly consistent with science on quite a few things... but you haven't read it clearly so eh.

[Stevolutionary]

Orly? I don't think you've read the bible if you think it's even close to science...

[MegaMew]

I don't think that Steve is ego inflating or anything.  I have friends who were part of a debate team back in high school, and they often had a very similar manner of presenting arguments.  To the untrained ear/eye it may seem like they're full of their selves, but the reality is a lot of time and effort was put into crafting their arguments to sound legitimate and professional.

[CaRniVoRe]

*Charlie Brown's Teacher noise*

About all I can say is. I'm not a bigot. You are incorrect Steveo. Besides that.. meh, all I heard in my head when I read your posts was the voice like the teacher from Charlie Brown. "wah wah wah wah wah wuh wah" etc.

I wasnt mad or getting offended either. Just explaining my stance. Nothing more. I prolly shouldnt have called you an idiot but oh well. I'm far too lazy to go back and edit the post.

Continue to troll. It makes no difference to me regardless of how articulate or eloquent you may be. It doesnt change the fact that you are delusional and have a messiah complex.

Also, I make light of social issues quite frequently. Anything can be funny imho. If you wanna be outraged about it feel free. You have every right to be a crybaby douchetard.

I find it cute that you keep referring to the collective "us" in your reply. I was only talking to you. I didn't accuse the "us" you speak of, of anything. Only you. It's a sad attempt to gain support from others in your pathetic raging. As if you think you are speaking for everyone. Quite hilarious. I spotted it almost instantly even though some may not have caught it. It wasnt me versus everyone else. It was me versus you.

In closing if you were just joking or whatever and I misunderstood. Totally my bad. Sorry. My apologies. However your sense of humor is just ... I dunno. You aren't funny. You are the loud overly oppinionated guy at the party that everyone wants to slap the shit out of. I behave this way occassionally as well though so. No hate there. I however realize when im wrong. I have no problem admitting it. But anyway I gotta go to lunch. Try not to slit ur wrists before I get back.

Take care folks  

PS. I still stand behind my "grenade into a room of fat chicks" statement 100 % .

BTW Steve-O . I think we should just let the discussion about Homosexuality continue without us arguing. If you have anything to say to me or whatever just PM me dude. Again if i misunderstood (maybe cause you use all the big hard words and my tiny intellect cannot understand them) my apologies.

[LeetFruitBoy]

Orly? I don't think you've read the bible if you think it's even close to science...

I didn't say it was completely consistent with science.

I said quite a few things of it are.

And I haven't read the whole bible yet... I don't even go to church since i dunno if im ready for that sort of thing yet.

[CaRniVoRe]

I think science explains with fact, some things that religion explains with faith. The 2 shouldnt even be arguing. They should just collaborate and find a common ground.

The argument there is that someone who believes strictly in science cannot possibly prescribe to religion because to them it may seem to be nothing more than a delusion.

The reverse argument from the side of the religious person can be made just by looking at Evolution vs Creation.

When it comes to things that far back in time however both parties are only speculating. Regardless of what it says in the bible or in your science textbook, no one 100% truly knows why we are or how we are here. They can merely speculate on the beginning. Big Bang vs God and 7 days.(Im using Christianity as the religion obviously tho I prescribe to no faith. In this topic it makes the most sense) Nothing more. The Big bang Theory is highly more beleivable than "god made everything in 7 days". I dont 100% believe either. Theres no way I can know.

In the end maybe science is explaining with theory and math, what religion is saying based on their faith. Would make the most sense to me for the 2 to collaborate rather than bicker like children.

In regards to homosexuality however science need not be used in the discussion unless you have an argument that being gay is genetic. Religions bash all types of lifestyles and thats just a fact.

The notion that being gay is evil is the idea that must be challenged in regards with religion. Nothing more.

[MegaMew]

God created The Big Bang.  Problem solved 
(I'm not religious but like Carnivore said, there's no reason science and faith can't intermingle)

[LeetFruitBoy]

God created The Big Bang.  Problem solved 
(I'm not religious but like Carnivore said, there's no reason science and faith can't intermingle)

Actually I know somebody who truly believes this theory.

[Insani99999]

I'm fine with homosexuals as long as it's not in a dark alley. 

If they are attracted to males, that's fine, there's nothing you can do about it. Just like you can't turn a true heterosexual gay, you can't turn a true homosexual straight. I make it a point not to hate people with disorders / are different.

[LeetFruitBoy]

I'm fine with homosexuals as long as it's not in a dark alley. 

If they are attracted to males, that's fine, there's nothing you can do about it. Just like you can't turn a true heterosexual gay, you can't turn a true homosexual straight. I make it a point not to hate people with disorders / are different.

It's usually not a choice.

For me it wasn't at least.

[Insani99999]

I'm fine with homosexuals as long as it's not in a dark alley. 

If they are attracted to males, that's fine, there's nothing you can do about it. Just like you can't turn a true heterosexual gay, you can't turn a true homosexual straight. I make it a point not to hate people with disorders / are different.

It's usually not a choice.

For me it wasn't at least.

I never said it was a choice, I for one agree that it is not a choice, just like heterosexuals don't choose their attractions, neither do bisexuals, homosexuals, whatever. 

[MegaMew]

I feel like in our current society there is no reason anyone male would ever choose to be gay.  Its "funny" how there's a total double standard where gay men are seen as "icky" but lesbians are "hot".

Disclaimer: I don't find there to be anything icky about gay men (I don't like extreme PDA, but the same applies to hetero couples).  I'm simply stating an observation on society as a whole.