Nominate your candidate for DC pope here

[Bo's Pelini]

Dave Lane

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by listopencil

No, it's not irrelevant. Religious belief enacted those laws. Religion.

Religion and God are two separate things.

You can't rationally separate them in your own mind but that's something you'll have to reconcile yourself.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Despite what Christians may tell you, it's entirely possible for the Christian God to exist without the existence of Christianity or Christians for that matter.

That's kind of like saying this message board can exist without the Chiefs.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by GoWalrus

That's kind of like saying this message board can exist without the Chiefs.

It can't?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Religion and God are two separate things.

You can't rationally separate them in your own mind but that's something you'll have to reconcile yourself.

No, I completely understand the difference. You are ignoring the effects of religion, apparently because you are ambivalent about the existence of God. As am I, by the way. Our personal feelings about God is a separate issue than the laws we have to live by, in that our lives are affected by the religious beliefs of others.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by listopencil

No, I completely understand the difference. You are ignoring the effects of religion, apparently because you are ambivalent about the existence of God. As am I, by the way. Our personal feelings about God is a separate issue than the laws we have to live by that our affected by the religious beliefs of others.

I am not ignoring the effects of religion, I'm dismissing them because they're not relevant to the discussion.

This started as a discussion about Agnosticism and Atheism, both of which have everything to do with the existence of God and NOTHING to do with the effects of organized religion on society.

It's obvious that you harbor considerable bitterness towards organized religion. I respect that.

But that has nothing at all to do with whether there is, or is not, a God.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I am not ignoring the effects of religion, I'm dismissing them because they're not relevant to the discussion.

This started as a discussion about Agnosticism and Atheism, both of which have everything to do with the existence of God and NOTHING to do with the effects of organized religion on society.

It's obvious that you harbor considerable bitterness towards organized religion. I respect that.

But that has nothing at all to do with whether there is, or is not, a God.

The discussion started with your post:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Just based on some of his anti-religious rants over the years, I'm guessing he doesn't quite understand the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic".

Anti-religious. Not bitterness towards God, or the nature of God's existence. Bitterness directed towards religion.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Anti-religious. Not bitterness towards God, or the nature of God's existence. Bitterness directed towards religion.

I already admitted that was a poor choice of words.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I already admitted that was a poor choice of words.

Sorry, I missed that post. Then we agree.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Religion and God are two separate things.

Amen.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Go back and read my posts again. That might help you out. They aren't irrelevant. They just don't go along with your opinion. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me wrong. That's fine though. The world would be boring without dissent.

They may be relevant to some point you want to make, but they're irrelevant to the point I was making when you replied to me. Your subsequent posts (like, for example, the second part of post 47) show that you don't really understand my point. I'm OK with that. I just wanted to point it out in case anyone else was having the same difficulty.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Isn't pedo talk supposed to be a rule violation now? Or does Dane just get special protection?

I wasn't accusing you of anything. Sorry if that was offensive to you. It was supposed to be funny.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That's incredibly vague, and practically meaningless. I would say that this post:



Would be similar to saying that, because I admire a lot of Thomas Jefferson's ideas, as President of DC I would pronounce that anyone who is having financial difficulties should have been invested in Negroes.

Holy shit!

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by patteeu

There's no rule against calling yourself racist. Good grief, do you understand the topic we're discussing? If you want to generate a similar example, try to make it similar in some important respect related to the point being discussed.

Can we use the n-word as long as we're joking? Look, as dumb as the rule is, it was a rule articulated by Flopnuts and he wasn't willing to offer any kind of clarification. He's in clear violation of his stupid rule. Now if he wants to articulate a better rule so we can all understand where the line is drawn, or if he wants to admit it was a stupid rule from the beginning and repeal it, I'm all ears.

This isn't a question of whether you find his post offensive. It's a question about his rule. Because personally, I don't see how it could possibly be offensive if a stranger on a message board actually accuses someone they don't even know of being a pedophile so that's clearly not the test.

JFC Relax Pat. It wasn't a rule I invented. I'm just the one that announced it. You'll have to cry to every single mod on this board if it's that big of a deal to you. And in no way did I accuse you of anything. It was a stupid ****ing joke that was really directed at Pope Benedict. But enjoy your soapbox. I've said everything I intend to say on the matter.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I wasn't accusing you of anything. Sorry if that was offensive to you. It was supposed to be funny.

The rule was pretty simple and when I asked for clarification, you gave me nothing. No one accused anyone of being a pedophile in the thread where you announced the rule either. So I'm still left wondering where the line is drawn. If it's going to be a rule, it seems to me that you have an obligation to articulate it's boundaries, particularly when you're going to post things that violate the literal meaning of the rule you announced. If I had posted what you posted here to DaneMcLoud in that thread after you announced the rule, I have no doubt you would have banned me.

Here's our exchange, just to refresh your memory:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

I've never seen anyone get under Pat's skin like this. The Pedo talk is done. Consensus amongst all mods. It's going to be a bannable offense.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Who got under who's skin? Take a look at our profile page messages, take a look at our PM inboxes, consider who went crying to the mods when they couldn't take what they were dishing out. Or for that matter, just read this thread. And then get back to me on that.

As I mentioned to DaFace, this new modification to the pedo talk rule is unclear. Is the pedo reference made by Dane in post 124 going to be bannable? How about Dane's pedo reference in post 130 when he was mad that I didn't take his bait? How about his third pedo reference when he contemplated the rape of my daughter in post 132 because I was still ignoring them? Or is it only a bannable offense when someone serves Dane a taste of his own medicine in the form of an oblique pedo reference after repeated trolling efforts on his part?

Originally Posted by Suddenly Shy Flopnuts

*crickets*

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

JFC Relax Pat. It wasn't a rule I invented. I'm just the one that announced it. You'll have to cry to every single mod on this board if it's that big of a deal to you. And in no way did I accuse you of anything. It was a stupid ****ing joke that was really directed at Pope Benedict. But enjoy your soapbox. I've said everything I intend to say on the matter.

You were in a big hurry to announce the rule. But you still seem to be unable to explain it. You're the guy who chose to be the public face of the rule so don't get bashful now. And if you ever have any thoughts about molesting children, please seek help.