• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

USB = satan

Not in the OP, but in the posts following. That is my point.

Quote the post where someone, anyone attributed what was claimed in the OP to ALL Christians. I don't see it, that's why I say you have no point.
 
I speak of these. Along with the usual indirect notions of others that agree with these statements.

Nope. Fail. Not all Christians. YOU made an assumption, one that is not correct. This is called a straw man... when you attribute a position to someone else, usually an extreme position, but one that they do not actually hold. Poor form in debate.
 
I have a fungal infection underneath my armpit.
 
It is you and the others here who take this issue and apply it to all Christians.

The part in bold where you apply this behavior to me is proof that you are creating an alternate reality that doesn't exist so that you can feel justified in engaging in bad behaviors.

Because to include me in that list based on the sole comment of "I bet they use chopsticks" is only possible if one has went out of their way to cocoon themselves in an alternate vision.

What I am doing is showing how easily such a silly notion can be taken by those same people and reversed back at yourselves.

This is further proof of false assumptions in order to justify hyporicy. I've noticed this penchant for false assumptions in many modern conservatives and my theory is that it is due to the victim-mentality that has infested the conservative movement over the last decade or so.

My theory is that this culture of victimization which has infested the right is exacerbated by the media punditsw who cry out about the "War on Christmas" and other such nonsense to cultivate the anger and fear of their demographic audience so that can utilize that which they bitch about from the left as a way to influence public opinion. I mean, nobody is a bigger poster-boy for the victim-mentality right now than Glen Beck is.

But sadly, the culture of victimization is so prevelant in the modern conservative movement that whenever one criticizes a conservative pundit or presents a legitimate argumetn for small government politics that doesn't fall in line with the dogmatic "conservative" principles that are often far from small-government in nature, they get labeled as the "enemy". Then the "enemy" gets labelled as people who are attacking your way of life.

There was a time when conservativism was about taking personal reponsibility. That idea remains cornerstone of my political beliefs, but of course that also puts me at odds with many modern conservatives who have forsaken that idea.

This means that when I want to denounce a position taken by someone, I will present an argument against their position (as I am doing right now) instead of merely engaging in the same tactics I am supposedly denouncing. That's because I take personal responsibility for my own actions.

To give an example of someone actually doing this conservative type of action, see the Angry American's comment in post #8.

I saw no need to add to what was already so succinctly stated by him.

What you added to the conversation, triggering our discussion, was simply victim-mentality nonsense and did not do what Angry American did so well.

As CC has pointed out, already, you were operating under flawed assumptions. I am merely stating my thoeries on where these flawed assumptions stem from.


That's false because my explanation of such bad behavior is not bad behavior itself. This reveals another failed notion exclusive to you: You make it seem as though anyone stating the foolishness of certain notions are somehow "justifying it with their own bad behavior."

Perhaps you think that saying "Although, there are many instances of select liberals doing vastly stupid things, like blowing children up on an EcoFascist liberal campaign ad by "10:10." But yeah, everything's game here. " is stating th efollishness of the notions, but that would be incorrect. That is engaging in the same foolishness.

Read Angry American's post. That is stating the foolishness of a notion. Now compare it to what you said.

In no legitimate reality are the two statements comparable in nature.

can we not just laugh at the scenario at hand and not apply it to a whole group

Most peopel were just laughing at the scenario. I know I was. The two posters I know to be evangelical Christians in this thread were.

Can we not do this without someone injecting partisan victim-mentality garbage into the discussion?

Consider it, please.
 
Wake, stop tarding up my thread so we can be back to bad jokes.
 
Wake, stop tarding up my thread so we can be back to bad jokes.

Lol, fine. I just ask that people don't take this instance and apply it to all Christians. It's just that I usually experience liberals that constantly bash Christians, so I thought that they were being bashed here. That's all.

That bit about the daemons and such were neat.
 
Lol, fine. I just ask that people don't take this instance and apply it to all Christians. It's just that I usually experience liberals that constantly bash Christians, so I thought that they were being bashed here. That's all.

That bit about the daemons and such were neat.

I already handled the situation with a preemptory disclaimer on page one, though I'm a bit disappointed that my witty jab at SE102's spelling seems to have been a little too subtle.
 
Lol, fine. I just ask that people don't take this instance and apply it to all Christians. It's just that I usually experience liberals that constantly bash Christians, so I thought that they were being bashed here. That's all.

That bit about the daemons and such were neat.

No one suggests that all Christians, or all religious people are like this. But the only people who are like this are religious people. It's the square/rectangle thing.
 
No one suggests that all Christians, or all religious people are like this. But the only people who are like this are religious people. It's the square/rectangle thing.

This doesn't include athiestic conspiracy theorists? Because one example is the 9/11 Truthers, and I know not all of them are religious.
 
This doesn't include athiestic conspiracy theorists? Because one example is the 9/11 Truthers, and I know not all of them are religious.

Atheists, by their very nature, don't consider computers to be statanic.

That much should be obvious.
 
Atheists, by their very nature, don't consider computers to be statanic.

That much should be obvious.

I'll reason with you on that. However, there are athiestic conspiracy theorists so it's not only religious people that can be silly. I also know of athiests that are extremely suspicious of Ouiji (sp??) boards and ghosts.
 
I'll reason with you on that. However, there are athiestic conspiracy theorists so it's not only religious people that can be silly. I also know of athiests that are extremely suspicious of Ouiji (sp??) boards and ghosts.

This is another strawman.

Nobody here ever said that only religious people can be silly. The imaginary idea that someone did say this is merely the product of the victim-mentality motto: "If no victimization is occuring, invent a reason to feel victimized."

What was said was that only religious people will engage in this type of silliness, i.e. associating the USB symbol with Satan. This is because being non-religious automatically excludes this particular brand of silliness from their silliness repertoire by default.

Or, as it was put, it is a square rectangle thing. Only a person who is religious can engage in religion-oriented silliness. Just as only a non-religious person can engage in anti-religion silliness.

There's no reason to defend all of Christiandom from imaginary attacks simply because the reality of the situation has been explicitly stated.
 
Lol, fine. I just ask that people don't take this instance and apply it to all Christians. It's just that I usually experience liberals that constantly bash Christians, so I thought that they were being bashed here. That's all.

That bit about the daemons and such were neat.

Can we not take terrorist attacks and apply them to all Muslims?
 
The real reason for this is that some of his "flock" (or whatever) were carrying their pron collections around on flash drives - and banning all USB devices helped....

Wait, that won't work...

Nope, this makes zero sense.
 
Lol, fine. I just ask that people don't take this instance and apply it to all Christians. It's just that I usually experience liberals that constantly bash Christians, so I thought that they were being bashed here. That's all.

That bit about the daemons and such were neat.

And I usually experience folks who are very conservative as being nasty, closed-minded, and short-sighted. However, it would be ridiculous of me to make the assumption that because THAT is my experience, everyone who is very conservative will behave just like that. A good suggestion would be for you to drop your sterotypes and assumptions and respond to what is written, not how you expeirence a particular poltical bent. It is entirely possible that your experience may NOT apply to everyone, and that your experiences might be clouded by your own politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom