Christmas messages from politicians

Knasher · 10-12-2013 12:46am

catallus wrote: »

Your transparent tactic of attempting to drag this off-topic by reducing the conversation to a clinical examination of syntax is a sad reflection on the open-mindedness which you claim to have.

Honestly it astounds me that you can't even admit to misusing a term. Something that, however ironically, could be ascribe to either hyperbole or even simple misunderstanding, and forgotten. It wouldn't detract from your argument in the slightest. From the fact that you are completely unwilling to accede even the most minor of points makes me doubt that any amount of argument could change your mind.

catallus wrote: »

I must conclude that my suspicions are finally comprehensively justified.

At this point I'd suggest that was your starting position rather than your conclusion.

Turtwig · 10-12-2013 12:47am

Geomy wrote: »

In fairness now Sarky, you do come across a bit more strident than most of the other user's here.
I think being a moderator probably saves you from infraction a lot of the time. ..

How you get away with some post's is beyond me. ..

Leave the modding of the mod not modding here to the mods modding mods not modding here.
Ta,

Hint: A moderator is only a mod of his/her own forum. They're just regular posters everywhere else.

robindch · 10-12-2013 12:49am

catallus wrote: »

What gets me is that a lot of people would bend over backwards to avoid being labeled intolerant of anything at all. Which is fearsome, if one thinks about it.

I don't believe I've ever met anybody who would avoid being labelled "intolerant of anything at all", even using what I can understand of your peculiar definition of the word.

For myself, I'm intolerant of bad music, bad cooking, political offence-taking and more than averagely intolerant of bad thinking. I'm sure there are more, but that's just a start.

Anybody else have intolerances they'd like to share?

Sierra 117 · 10-12-2013 12:52am

I'm intolerant... of biscuits!

Sarky · 10-12-2013 12:53am

Why not? Any points actually related to the op have been drowned out by character assassination.

I'm quite intolerant of wilful ignorance. I find it despicable and cowardly.

And sprouts. Horrible little things.

catallus · 10-12-2013 1:08am

Knasher wrote: »

Honestly it astounds me that you can't even admit to misusing a term. Something that, however ironically, could be ascribe to either hyperbole or even simple misunderstanding, and forgotten. It wouldn't detract from your argument in the slightest. From the fact that you are completely unwilling to accede even the most minor of points makes me doubt that any amount of argument could change your mind. At this point I'd suggest that was your starting position rather than your conclusion.

If it makes you feel better to dismiss my point by claiming that I am insurmountably entrenched in an incorrect position then that's your choice. You called me out for misattributing the term hyberbole to a poster who misrepresented historical fact, btw. For people that pride themselves on not being deluded by superstition it seems awry that so many are deluded by their own self-assuredness in their own descriptors. But pride does come before the fall, I've been told. And levity is the hand-maiden of untold evil.

It appears the Original Post is no longer being discussed. Just for the record I'm intolerant of bigotry and rancid rhetoric which is aimed at fuelling intolerance, however gently it is dressed.

Sarky · 10-12-2013 1:11am

You were never discussing the OP.

catallus · 10-12-2013 1:20am

Sarky wrote: »

You were never discussing the OP.

Yes I was. What's your point?

pauldla · 10-12-2013 2:16am

"Militant gentleness". I love it!

This is all a big circle-jerk and I hate you all! Why is nobody agreeing with me? That just shows this is all a big circle-jerk! I hate you all! :pac:

Turtwig · 10-12-2013 2:30am

Sierra 117 wrote: »

I'm intolerant... of biscuits!

Burn the blasphemer!
Stone the blasphemer!

[-0-] · 10-12-2013 3:14am

Geomy wrote: »

How you get away with some post's is beyond me. ..

Report any posts you have an issue with.

Failure to do so lays the blame partially with you.

Obliq · 10-12-2013 9:29am

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever met anybody who would avoid being labelled "intolerant of anything at all", even using what I can understand of your peculiar definition of the word.

For myself, I'm intolerant of bad music, bad cooking, political offence-taking and more than averagely intolerant of bad thinking. I'm sure there are more, but that's just a start.

Anybody else have intolerances they'd like to share?

Oooh, oooh, yes! Loads! I'm especially intolerant of discrimination based on gender and sexuality, which is why I am so intolerant of religions which actively practice this discrimination. I'm also very freakin' intolerant of bad driving and have actually confronted a particularly sh*tty driver who was tailgating people on a dark evening in torrential rain and overtaking wildly in order to get to Aldi 30 seconds more quickly than I did. He was a bit sorry when I'd finished with him

pauldla wrote: »

"Militant gentleness". I love it!

This is all a big circle-jerk and I hate you all! Why is nobody agreeing with me? That just shows this is all a big circle-jerk! I hate you all! :pac:

Ha, yes. And levity is the root of all evil, so STOP LAUGHING, RIGHT??! :mad:

Edit: Levity is the handmaiden of evil. Sorry.

the_syco · 10-12-2013 3:14pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

move back the "birth of the baby Jeebus" about 6 months.

As opposed to the annual birth of the pagan god?

catallus wrote: »

I got your point only too well. Your post was just a lazy swipe at our culture

Not our culture, your culture.

catallus wrote: »

while they spout hideous discriminatory and slanderous remarks

List said remarks.

catallus wrote: »

And I can recognise intolerance when I see it, thanks.

So you are tolerant in the wastage of taxpayers money by politicians on religious spam?

Jernal wrote: »

Can I fling mud? Please, please please! Can I fling mud?

Nein. Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein, nein!

catallus wrote: »

I'm willing to admit that I'm intolerant of a lot of things

But completely tolerant of politicians wasting vast sums of money on spam?

catallus wrote: »

Yes I was. What's your point?

Actually, no, you were not. You were discussing the perceived intolerance of the OP of Christmas, rather than the topic which was the OP's intolerance of politicians using taxpayers money to fund religious spam.

Brian Shanahan · 10-12-2013 4:15pm

catallus wrote: »

The country isn't fcuked because of this. There are more obvious reasons. Your intolerance (which is shared by many on this thread) being one of the more obvious ones.

You're the one defending the use of public funds to chase votes. You honestly have no means which with to either claim the high ground or give out about the contents of my post.

Brian Shanahan · 10-12-2013 4:20pm

Sarky wrote: »

I really don't think you are using the same definition of intolerance that most of the world is using.

From what catullus (sic.) is typing in this thread I think his definition of intolerance is:
"If I voice my disagreement with your opinion I am tolerant (no matter how insensitive I voice said disagreement). If your ideas are different from mine you are intolerant."

Geomy · 10-12-2013 4:24pm

It's looking like this is turning into a thread about defending one of our own rather than a discussion. ..
A dog with a Mallet up his arse could see that. ...

It's amazing how this herd mentality happens out side organised religion. ..

Brian Shanahan · 10-12-2013 4:25pm

Sarky wrote: »

Wow. So I guess this whole thread was REALLY about someone putting me on f*cking trial for my militant gentleness. That's me told. Anyone else want to fling mud? Speculate on my parentage? Criticise my taste in music? Claim that yes, I do look fat in those jeans?

Are you a good looking young lady who likes to wear tight semi-transparent t-shirts?

Obliq · 10-12-2013 4:35pm

Geomy wrote: »

I don't know what to think now........

What would mr miagi say ?

Mr Miagi say jump on nearest bandwagon, quick smart.

Geomy wrote: »

It's amazing how this herd mentality happens out side organised religion. ..

Oh dear Geomy. Oh dearie me.

Geomy · 10-12-2013 4:44pm

Obliq wrote: »

Mr Miagi say jump on nearest bandwagon, quick smart.

Oh dear Geomy. Oh dearie me.

Aw come on Oblique, its plain to see it's turning into a free for all gang up on the OP's opposition. ...

Pherekydes · 10-12-2013 4:45pm

Geomy wrote: »

It's amazing how this herd mentality happens out side organised religion. ..

And what about the herds inside organised religion? And which side of the fence are you? Or are you still claiming to be neither a believer nor a non-believer?

Organised religions are all about herding and controlling. Outside organised religions, one is free to join whatever herd one wishes. Or not, as one wishes.

Obliq · 10-12-2013 5:37pm

Geomy wrote: »

Aw come on Oblique, its plain to see it's turning into a free for all gang up on the OP's opposition. ...

Hmm. Well, I disagree, and not for the sake of it but just because I don't see this thread in the same way as you do. One could equally say it's been a free for all against the OP. Where you have people agreeing with the OP or the opposing voice, is it too much of a stretch to give those people the benefit of the doubt and imagine that they have independently come to agree with one or the other?

I don't mind telling you I get annoyed by some spammer wasting my money by sending me a reminder that they exist in the shape of an xmas card I don't want and I throw straight in the bin. I get equally annoyed by supermarkets and service companies sending me xmas messages to get me to buy their stuff. I managed to develop those opinions all by myself and I happen to agree (without recourse to "group think") with most of what the OP said.

When the opposing voice turned on anyone who feels that way, quite rudely banging on about intolerance.....well, it made me feel pretty crappily like my opinion was being lumped in with everyone else's. And that's another one of my big intolerances.

Cabaal · 10-12-2013 5:51pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Organised religions are all about herding and controlling. Outside organised religions, one is free to join whatever herd one wishes. Or not, as one wishes.

There's a reason why the catholic church makes references to a shepherd (their god) and flocks (people who believe in it),

Fits I suppose, I certainly wouldn't see sheep as very independent animals

Flock behavior

Sheep are flock animals and strongly gregarious; much sheep behavior can be understood on the basis of these tendencies. The dominance hierarchy of sheep and their natural inclination to follow a leader to new pastures were the pivotal factors in sheep being one of the first domesticated livestock species.[47] Furthermore, in contrast to the red deer and gazelle (two other ungulates of primary importance to meat production in prehistoric times), sheep do not defend territories although they do form home ranges.[48] All sheep have a tendency to congregate close to other members of a flock, although this behavior varies with breed,[13] and sheep can become stressed when separated from their flock members.[7] During flocking, sheep have a strong tendency to follow and a leader may simply be the first individual to move. Relationships in flocks tend to be closest among related sheep: in mixed-breed flocks, subgroups of the same breed tend to form, and a ewe and her direct descendants often move as a unit within large flocks.[6] Sheep can become hefted to one particular local pasture (heft) so they do not roam freely in unfenced landscapes. Lambs learn the heft from ewes and if whole flocks are culled it must be retaught to the replacement animals.[7][49]
[12]

old hippy · 10-12-2013 6:18pm

catallus wrote: »

Your post was just a lazy swipe at our culture.

Who's culture? Not mine.

catallus · 10-12-2013 6:52pm

old hippy wrote: »

Who's culture? Not mine.

I'd expect an answer like that from a nihilist like yourself, OldHippy. What is saddening is that this attitude is emulated by many posters here.

Turtwig · 10-12-2013 6:53pm

Emulated? It's a fake attitude then?

catallus · 10-12-2013 6:59pm

Jernal wrote: »

Emulated? It's a fake attitude then?

Well obviously. Most posters on this forum would be faking it. I probably have to explain what I mean by "faking it" now, given the love of sniggering word-pedantry that passes for argument around here. Most atheists online are very facile.

Turtwig · 10-12-2013 7:03pm

Please don't explain what 'faking it' means. This is meant to be a family friendly forum*.

Possibly not true.

Geomy · 10-12-2013 7:08pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

And what about the herds inside organised religion? And which side of the fence are you? Or are you still claiming to be neither a believer nor a non-believer?

Organised religions are all about herding and controlling. Outside organised religions, one is free to join whatever herd one wishes. Or not, as one wishes.

Im not on any side, and certainly not religious or an atheist.

Obliq · 10-12-2013 7:11pm

catallus wrote: »

Well obviously. Most posters on this forum would be faking it. I probably have to explain what I mean by "faking it" now, given the love of sniggering word-pedantry that passes for argument around here. Most atheists online are very facile.

What an obnoxious thing to say. I think you're trolling, just for the hell of it. I think you're spoiling for a fight, and you've picked a forum which has people regularly posting in it who actually form opinions on their own. Therefore, this is the best place for you to try and get everyone's backs up by generalising and name calling.

Jernal wrote: »

Please don't explain what 'faking it' means. This is meant to be a family friendly forum*.

Possibly not true.

Well, it's a whole lot truer than catallus's statements. This person is a proper waste of time.

catallus · 10-12-2013 7:19pm

Obliq wrote: »

What an obnoxious thing to say. I think you're trolling, just for the hell of it. I think you're spoiling for a fight, and you've picked a forum which has people regularly posting in it who actually form opinions on their own. Therefore, this is the best place for you to try and get everyone's backs up by generalising and name calling.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Even a light perusal of the threads linked to Atheism and Agnosticism would prove that to be inaccurate. I'm not having a go, but face facts. This is the last place to be if one wishes to avoid group-think.

As for accusing me of generalising and name calling, this is baffling. Obnoxious, moi?

Christmas messages from politicians

Comments