Originally posted by Sargoth

I think that there is a double standard going on today. It has to do with the acceptable limits on bashing two different subjects. Race and Religion. I myself have just finished my 30 day vacation for posting a comic making light of the fact that Obama is of mixed origin with his father being black and his mother white. While looking through the forum during my time off, I found this one quote by Seabass2003

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/252664/page/2

"Ok here you go stupid. HPR. Now take your shitty religion and shove it up your ass."

Now I'm not trying to get him a vacation, but I am trying to point out something I think is happening across many levels.

People are not allowed to talk about race, you can't have a discussion at all without someone coming along and claiming they are crying on the inside for what you have written and that you are a racist and only practice hate speech.

Yet when it comes to religion, there is like an acceptable bashing that is allowed to go on. Either Seabass's remarks or the constant rhetoric from Sabiancym every time someone posts a religious topic.

"I think believing in a god, any god, is illogical and weak.

I'm looking forward to this religion spreading. Christianity is on the decline in this country and it's getting boring arguing with them. I need a new invisible magic man to denounce.

It's where religion works best. In poor, weak, and uneducated minds."

That isn't hate speech?

Or from CatusmanX

And I engauge in debates, because one it is fun but two I find religious belief damaging to people and if I can make them question their faith then that is a worthwhile endeavour.

To try and make someone question their belief? That is allowable? To try and destroy something that is held closely to someones heart?

Or is it because it's a socially accepted norm now that religion is allowed to be mocked and weak? Or is it because it's a majority and we don't like the majortiy because there is no room for the minority? The minority in the room is the non-believers and they are the ones that attack the religion. Is this the basis for their protection? In race, the miniority is the one getting all the benefits from the government. I've been told by organizations and many close friends if I wanted to start a business, I should find a black girl to head up the business because she will get approved faster and get more benefits than I would being a white male when applying to the government. Or the stories from colleges that give more entrance points to minorities or the well known firemans case with not enough minorities passing the test so everyone else was denyed a raise.

To the orginal point, and my question, Is race discussion off the table because it is something that cannot be changed while religion is choosen therefore it is allowed to be bashed with impunity? Both are held very dearly to each indiviuals heart but one is allowed while the other is not.

Getting back on topic.

Religion and politics is an ongoing ideological choice that people make so there is a perceived benefit by attempting to alter a person's choice, therefor, religion and politics are worth the effort of challenging a person's view because it might alter their view to be aligned with yours.

Race is not a choice.  Race is not an idealogy.  The race of a person has no real bearing on what that person thinks or what their capabilities are.  You can not discuss the colour out of someone's skin.  No debate you have to offer will alter their race in any real way.

You might be able to make a legitimate arguement based around aesthetics, but I don't feel you'll get very far with it since each race has its own jewels to be admired by each and every other race.

Sorry if anybody already addressed these points but I didn't continue to read after the thread shunted onto another track.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by kobie173

When are people going to realize that attempting to debate with Fisher is pointless, because he's such a pedantic, insufferable prick that he will NEVER concede a point and will CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS TO FIT IN WITH HIS WORLDVIEW. You can't beat that.

 

1. I'm sorry which definitions of words has he conveniently changed?

2. Why would anyone want to debate with you when all we see are insults?

 

1. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

2. So don't. I could not care less. Have I insulted YOU?

 

I have been paying attention, so I'll ask again.  Which definitions has he misused?  When I look in to a dictionary I see that his definitions are correct.  Perhaps I missed one?  That's why I asked.

No you haven't insulted me, but you have made it a point to do so with others in this thread.

Here is a popular one that you, yourself, are guilty of - democracy.

You've developed a habit of suggesting that democracy and a republic are incompatible, as if within a republic, there is no place for democracy.  In the interests of preventing further disillusionment among the less illuminated members of this forum could you explain to them what representitive democracy is and how democracy is an important part of promoting the equality and freedom that you enjoy in America.

Originally posted by Wickersham

Here is a popular one that you, yourself, are guilty of - democracy.

You've developed a habit of suggesting that democracy and a republic are incompatible, as if within a republic, there is no place for democracy.  In the interests of preventing further disillusionment among the less illuminated members of this forum could you explain to them what representitive democracy is and how democracy is an important part of promoting the equality and freedom that you enjoy in America.

Fair criticism Wicker :) (even though you are baiting me with "less illuminated members of this forum" quip)

First my view point -- I view the value of Democracy and its relative stability as on a scale.  This scale's points are Absolute Localism (township) and Absolute National (National Level).  The further down the scale from National to Local you go, the better Demoracy is.  Democracy is necessary at some point for a republic to work since a republic works on representation, which must be voted upon in some manner.  Democracy is the most fair way of voting since each person is entitled to one, equal vote.  However, unbridled Democracy on a large scale will lead to the commonly heard phrase, Tyranny of the Majority.  In a Democracy up to 49% of the people could be oppressed just because the majority wants it that way.

I am an absolute supporter of a Constitutional Republic because of the checks and balances it has between the elite (elected politicians) and the people.  Representative Democracy on it's own is destructive because it does not have any limits.  A Republic by definition is limited by law, and in our case by a Constitution.

I think this video accurately describes my point of view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

For your comment that I suggest that demoracy and a republic are incompatible this is true, this is exactly what I am saying, but its important to remember the context in which I'm (trying to at least) present, and thats on a national level.

You are correct in saying that we live in a Representative Democracy, also known as a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

I believe a republic is far superior than a democracy simply because it better protects the minority from the majority.  It's a key pillar of individualistic philosophy.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Wickersham

Here is a popular one that you, yourself, are guilty of - democracy.

You've developed a habit of suggesting that democracy and a republic are incompatible, as if within a republic, there is no place for democracy.  In the interests of preventing further disillusionment among the less illuminated members of this forum could you explain to them what representitive democracy is and how democracy is an important part of promoting the equality and freedom that you enjoy in America.

 

Fair criticism Wicker :) (even though you are baiting me with "less illuminated members of this forum" quip)

First my view point -- I view the value of Democracy and its relative stability as on a scale.  This scale's points are Absolute Localism (township) and Absolute National (National Level).  The further down the scale from National to Local you go, the better Demoracy is.  Democracy is necessary at some point for a republic to work since a republic works on representation, which must be voted upon in some manner.  Democracy is the most fair way of voting since each person is entitled to one, equal vote.  However, unbridled Democracy on a large scale will lead to the commonly heard phrase, Tyranny of the Majority.  In a Democracy up to 49% of the people could be oppressed just because the majority wants it that way.

I am an absolute supporter of a Constitutional Republic because of the checks and balances it has between the elite (elected politicians) and the people.  Representative Democracy on it's own is destructive because it does not have any limits.  A Republic by definition is limited by law, and in our case by a Constitution.

I think this video accurately describes my point of view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

For your comment that I suggest that demoracy and a republic are incompatible this is true, this is exactly what I am saying, but its important to remember the context in which I'm (trying to at least) present, and thats on a national level.

You are correct in saying that we live in a Representative Democracy, also known as a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

I believe a republic is far superior than a democracy simply because it better protects the minority from the majority.  It's a key pillar of individualistic philosophy.

I think you need to replace republic with constitutionalism, since it's the constitution alone that provides those checks and balances and not the fact that you are a republic.  In it's simplest terms America is a representitive democracy tempered by it's constitution.

To illustrate my point I'll use some of your own words:

You are correct in saying that we live in a representative democracy, also known as a constitutional monarchy.