Jump to content

Jack of Spades

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Jack of Spades

  1. I don't buy into the anti-journalistic "they brainwash us with editorializing" - paranoia, sorry. That's way overblown and part of the conspiracy theory - world view I hate. I'm fine with mainstream media. It's the best alternative we have available. Anti-journalism throws out the baby with the bathwater. If I want to watch European or Finnish news, I read Finnish or British newspapers for that. I always prefer local news channels to follow the events in some other country, if I know the language. That's why I get my US news from US news channels. CNN is my favorite, but I watch few other
  2. Sorry can't do that. Chris Cuomo of CNN has never disappointed me. Until that happens, I remain a militant moderate and keep the faith in high quality journalism!
  3. Everyone is a great guy if we judge people based on their better moments and overlook their dark side. If someone beats their wife, they shouldn't get any credit for all the women they didn't beat. It's how far we go in our worse moments that defines how bad people we are. Someone who murders one person and doesn't murder 5 million others, is a murderer.
  4. Making better jokes would help. Seriously though, I am here talking to people over the internet whom I have never met, in a language that is not my native language, in the midst of a contentious topic, and we also probably all have plenty of cultural and age differences, so I think what you're asking would pass as a pretty good joke!
  5. See my earlier comment for you. You assume that people can't work against their own interest. Which is not some obvious truth. It's untrue historically, people, and groups of people, do work against their own interest all the time.
  6. I get it that this is your new running joke that everybody who disagrees with someone is a bigot. It's a very funny joke. Or actually it's not. It's just an annoying intentional misinterpretation of what I've been saying, but I guess that is your point, to try take cheap shots at what I've been saying.
  7. Bigotry is not limited to violent intentions. We already have a word for that, it's called "violent". Let's try what Dawkins said some other ways. Maybe you see what I see better when it's not directed at a group you happen to like to criticize: "Mock homosexuals, ridicule them, in public!" - just strongly disagreeing with homosexuals ideas about sexuality? "Mock immigrants, ridicule them, in public!" - just strongly disagreeing about immigrants ideas about where they should live?
  8. Do you think the religious persecution of the state atheists started as death squads out of nowhere? It didn't. It started as "strong rebutals" of religion, as you would put it. I recommend reading the communist atheist propaganda from the time period before there were any killings to demonstrate what kind of ideas led to the horrible killings.What defines an ideology is it's nature, not the amount of power it has. That nature will determine how the future power will be used. Dawkins and his peers have never had the power to execute anyone, so we don't know whether they would use it or no
  9. Not so fast conclusions. You brought up "being told by white males" implying that the channel can't be against white males, because there are white males. Right? So, I followed by demonstrating why the presence of white males is irrelevant for the argument, one way or the other. I have said what I wanted to say, I won't repeat it.
  10. If you interpret everything that is said in the most benign light possible, and assume that they would never imply such a thing, then maybe so. Note that one could interpret Trump's speeches the same way. In his famous opening speech, he spoke against some Mexicans not all Mexicans. That is the truth of what he said. Does it mean that there was absolutely no anti-Mexican tone? What I hear on MSNBC is that white males are the bad guys of every story and white males should be sorry. As an argument for anything, the presence of white men on MSNBC is irrelevant. There were also women mar
  11. Okay I was probably a bit too figurative. What I meant is that the anchors, commentators and panelists on MSNBC mention white males in some negative context in a very predictable, repetitive fashion, many times a day, every day 365 days a year. If someone grows up listening to that, they'll blame white males for everything that has ever been wrong in the world. Do an experiment yourself; turn on MSNBC, check what the time is when you start, and when you first hear "white males" see how long time it took and whether the context was negative, neutral or positive. Then just repeat and see ho
  12. I agree with pretty much everything you said and I'm glad whenever I hear someone address the topic in a sober-headed fashion that recognizes the reality of all the shades of grey. There is more mainstream version of that than posters in a trash can. I watch MSNBC myself occasionally and what I very often hear is: "White males... ddzzzz.... white men.... dzzzz.... white people.... dzzz.. white males.... dzzzz... men....dzzzz... white males... dzzzz" (that "dzzz" refers to speaking of unspecified words) It's like a sneaky brain-washing tape from a scifi-movie tha
  13. My speaking of justice was addressed to Blur, when he mentioned the present day cultural perceptions on bigotry. It wasn't a reference to anything said in this conversation. I take it as a sign that the discussion has become overheated when everything I have said the last 5 posts has been interpreted by more than one person to be a reference to Paul, when I was answering to someone about something else. I strongly disagree. I think it's the other way around. I think the recent trend of trying to make bigotry a taboo social stigma, a case of "either horrible 100% or or 0
  14. How much do you know about the history of atheism? It appears you are not familiar with the other side of the story. The Soviet Union. China. Cambodia. Vietnam. Albania. To name a few highlights. During the 20th century, the first century when state atheism has been practiced, the amount of persecution against Christians and other religions was worse than all the crusades put together were if measured by the amount of victims. The same state atheism - fun continues today in China and possibly in Vietnam (I'm not actually sure about that one, so I say possibly). The centuries of Christian
  15. Just for the record to avoid any misunderstandings in the future; While I share some opinions with the US conservatives, please don't mistake me as a sympathizer of the MAGA crew or expect me to defend anyone wearing a red hat. I despise them myself. Since I already confessed having certain bigoted or intolerant feelings, I won't make any excuses for my feelings there.
  16. You are right. I wasn't sensitive enough in bringing the adjacent topic of atheist bigotry up in this context. I should have been more sensitive, considering everything you just said in the quote. Sorry. I find atheist bigotry generally to be a legitimate topic to discuss but I should have done so after having put some time and space between the earlier accusation I made about your comments. FYI. The reason why I said that paragraph about Dawkins, was that I wanted to demonstrate that this "equating religion to mental illness" - problem is alive and well, and it's not just a product of my
  17. I for one, am bigoted and intolerant in few ways. I think pretty much everyone is. Expressions of some form of bigotry or intolerance are too much a taboo in my view. Justice is made of three elements, all of which are equally important: 1) punishing the guilty 2) letting the innocent go and 3) punishing the guilty proportionate to their offense. If someone says something offensive once, the proportionate "punishment" is some social disapproval and that's it. Asking for more harsh, disproportionate consequences (such as labeling the person for life) for such a minor ann
  18. Note the context. I was speaking of Richard Dawkins there. For one example, during Reason Rally 2012, he encouraged his listeners to treat people who claim to have religious beliefs as follows: "Mock them! Ridicule them! In public! Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion." Is it really that inaccurate to call Richard Dawkins a bigot and his branch of militant atheism a bigoted ideology? Source: https://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/
  19. As for the bolded part: If you had been delusional, you couldn't have critically examined your delusions and adjusted your thinking. You would have not had the option of adjusting your beliefs based on your evolving understanding. Delusional people also can't deconvert out of their delusions, like many people deconvert out of religious beliefs. The delusions are overwhelming and will override the delusional person's rational mind. The process how delusional mind develops, is a one-way street, like most mental illnesses are: the condition that makes people delusional typically only deteriorates
  20. Look, just an honest question; If I said the following, in the following order, what would you think: 1.) I would express interest in discussing the similarities between black people and apes. That is based on a technically accurate observation, there are in fact similarities, such as they both have the same amount of limbs attached to their upper body and neither one lays eggs, for examples. 2.) After having it pointed out that there are glaring differences, I would state that I don't care about the differences, and we should instead focus on discussing the similarities. 3.)
  21. You are not being oppressed by being forbidden from making an observation or discussing it. You have done so and I have: 1) participated in the discussion 2) generously explained to you why your observation is based on very selective, uninformed usage of the words you are using and 3) within reason, questioned why you are using such emotional, derogatory words, even after being informed that they are inaccurate. I have suggested that you have an agenda in doing so. If you start a bad-faith discussion, you are not entitled to being complimented about how awesome your
  22. The "Imply then deny" - gambit. If this was the only statement of similar nature you've made in a while, I would give you the benefit of the doubt but it isn't. They are violent fanatics. The same way as the atheist NKVD officers who carried out Stalin's purges and tortured "the enemies of the people" for decades as their job were violent fanatics. In today's world, the worst extremists are religious. In the days of the Cold War, the most horrible things were done by atheists. I recommend taking a more historical look into the topic of fanaticism before making too hasty concl
  23. I miss the old days (few days ago) when religious people were only irrationally rejecting the reality in your books, now we have been upgraded to delusional psychopaths... But I'll play along and address the points separately, delusions and psychopathy: That definition is seriously lacking some shades of grey and doesn't do justice for the reality! For example; My grandfather was a communist, he believed that the West is evil and socialism is good. By the time of his old days, there was plenty of evidence to the contrary but he refused to believe it. Was he delusional or
  24. Without referring to PaulS particularly, but as a general statement I've come to realize over the years that there will never be real mutual acceptance between theists and atheists or supernatural-believing and supernatural-denying people. The best we can do is to have a cease-fire and tolerate each others. Trying to find unity while having such vastly different ideas about the reality is unrealistic idealism. It's been said that language is the first weapon of every conflict, and this world view conflict is not an exception. I have personally been involved close-up in one well-int
  25. I already informed you that I'm not going to debate climate change. There is no point in debating it. It's settled science, there is a consensus on the field. Denying it is denying science the same way as denying gravity is denying science. For comparison, I'm myself a professional at something related to money. I'm a capitalist. I could give you a 5 hour lecture about something related to my profession, and you'd walk away thinking that I'm obviously right. That wouldn't mean I'm right, though, I could be intentionally misleading you. It would simply mean that I have too deep back
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service