Grey Thoughts
11.8.06
 
Wierd People With Chips On Their Shoulders
People who know me, know that I am a fairly blunt person. I tend not to stuff around with flowery phrases and generally speaking, I take people at their word. When I find people who say they 'believe in being a good person', I may wonder what they mean by 'good', but I generally believe they try to act morally. It isn't till they start acting inconsistently with their claims that I get more suspicious.

Enter 'The Tempest' a blog run by a couple of homosexual couples. Never heard of them before. I only found their blog by doing a search on the Dr Laura email that was used in one of my philosophy texts. What my search turned up was this post, by Daniel aka 'The Tempest'. Daniel had added his own salutation to Senator Brownback, and still claims to have added the first paragraph (even though most of it is plagiarized), but the rest of the letter in it's entirety is a copy of the Dr Laura email. Nowhere did Daniel use quotes or attribute the work to anyone else, in short, this is what is known as plagiarism, that is, a form of stealing. In my general blunt fashion, I mentioned this to Daniel, and also mentioned that copying hopelessly warped and misleading email was kind of pathetic. Daniel responded by the mature and responsible method of deleting my post, insulting me and then avoiding the issue. A second comment by me, in which I pondered his immature response, was also deleted. At least then however, Daniel added the better, but as mentioned previously, still incorrect disclaimer.

So here we have Daniel, who claims to try and be a good person, being abusive and upset, when it is pointed out to him that he was doing something that even the secular humanist gay rights feminist academics think is wrong?

I read further. It seems Daniel has received a lot of abusive email from Christian's and though I can't really speak for them, I am sorry that it has happened. Daniel, however, still seems to be adding to his inconsistencies.
And stop with the “You’re Anti-Religion!” I’m NOT your religious enemy! I never once have said your religion sucks and you’re all a bunch of brainwashed yahoos. I have only said - and will continue saying till my dying day- I don’t want religion in my life.
There is a method of communication called passive-aggressive. This is where the communicator tries to come across as the 'victim', when in reality, they are trying to insult, deride or manipulate you. Daniel's entire post is attacking Christianity and Christians. He compares a Christian run country with Islamic ones. He mocks and derides. The pulls more passive-aggressive tricks saying
I honestly don’t write anything that is meant to offend any of my so-called “targets”. You can’t offend someone with the truth.
My favorite part though is where he condemns himself
Unless your religion is actually HYPOCRISY.
You see Daniel. Whilst the Christian's who insult you may be misguided and not acting according to the bible, they too believe they are telling you the truth. And if they believe they are telling you the truth, then why do you get so worked up about it? "You can't offend someone with the truth" remember. Perhaps you should drop this idea of berating others for doing the same thing you are doing. What is that called again? Hypocrisy I believe.

Daniel of course, doesn't seem to want to let things go, and continues to be upset that someone would dare point out he was plagiarizing.
Thanks to one of God’s favorite soldiers. He decided to take it upon himself to verbally drag me into the square and (again verbally) publically flog me. All in the name of Christ.
Wow. I 'verbally publically flog[ged]' him. This guy seems to major on the minors. Overreaction becomes an art to some I guess. Now remember, he isn't anti-religious, especially when he says
Thanks, Alan, for playing Virgil and escorting me around your realm. If it weren’t for good ‘Christians’ like you, the Inquisition would have been dull-dull-dull, wars would be bor-r-r-ing, and I would not have seen the light.
Yep. Inquisition, wars, good 'Christians'. He doesn't sound antireligious at all...

Now Daniel's partner, Steve has also given a good example of being anti-religious.
You are deluded, sad, and pathetic. You are no more a Christian than those embryonic cells you fight so vehemently to protect, while on the other hand, turning your back on the wholesale slaughter of peoples American, Arabic and African as well. I was brought up Christian, but I know this faith is not for me, at least not the variety (Southern Baptist) that I knew. But Christianity, TRUE Christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, have very little to do with the things you say, do, and email. True Christianity values love (remember, “The greatest of these is love?”) above all else. Your desires for molding everyone in your twisted version of Christianity are hideous and devoid of anything even close to love.
Yep. Steve knows what 'true christianity' is and everyone else is just deluded, sad and pathetic. Steve can tell us that Satan was modeled after the pagan god Pan, and hell was manufactured by the church. It seems Steve's version of 'true christianity' would let him do everything he wants and somehow call this 'love'.

Steve continues
The hullabaloo by the right wing fringe is that gay marriage will undermine the family and traditional marriage as we know it.

BULL#$@!. If I marry my life partner of nearly five years, I can no more undermine the marriage of either of our very supportive heterosexual neighbors’ marriages, any more than moving in next to them has undermined my relationship.
I always wonder when I hear this sort of comment... are they simply being used and duped? Are they uninformed of the true aims of the reformation of marriage?

Steve and Daniel talk about love. They may even say they love each other. But there is an incredible dearth abundance of evidence at how destructive the homosexual lifestyle is. I don't about you, but when I think of love I think of wanting the true good of the person being loved, not of wanting to do things to harm them.

Update: Fixed incorrect use of the word 'dearth'
Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
No, Alan, I am not saying everyone else is deluded. But after reading your post, I can pretty much deduce that you are. Nice job of twisting around valid points with that trademark flair of the evangelical.

You quote one site "Beyond Marriage" as the basis for what the "true reformation of marriage is about." That's pretty weak, but then again, typical of the evangelical right. Like I said in my post, I don't believe your fringe element speaks for all of Christianity any more than that site speaks for what all gay people want out of marriage.

And do I believe I can do everything I want? Of course not, and that kind of argument leads me to believe that you are the childish one here. Scary to trust we might be using our own consciences instead of your Bible thumping rhetoric isn't it?

If you have to latch on to either one of us being "anti" something, we are "ant-right wing evangelical", because I will reiterate again, IMHO it has very very little to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ. You can disagree, that's fine. This, to me, was not going to be an ongoing dialogue. The basis for the discussion isn't likely to ever be agreed on.

I give you major props, though, on tutoring those would read your post on Daniel being passive aggressive while delivering passive aggressive in master strokes.

Again, I applaud you. That is an art form in itself.
 
I have some questions for you Mr. Grey.  Did not God charge christians to be an example to the world?  Are you setting a good example by being “blunt”?

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. James 1:26

Is it right for you to publicly call someone out as a thief?

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Luke 6:37

Yet you feign indignance at the idea someone would be upset at being accused of stealing.

defamation n.

1: a malicious attack
2: an abusive attack on a
person's character or good name

When someone professes to be Christian, I expect them to behave in a manner consistent with the teachings of their religion.  You claim to become suspicious of people who behave inconsistently with their words.  The hopelessly warped pathetic letter that is the subject of this “debate” attempts
to point out, rather sarcastically, the inconsistencies of biblical teachings. 

“I generally believe they try to act morally. It isn't till they start acting inconsistently with their claims that I get more suspicious.”

What do you have to be suspicious of?  No one is trying to sell you anything, convert you in any way.  I wonder why you continue to give so much air time to someone with whom you so vehemently disagree.  Should you not follow Christ’s example?

22 He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds, you have been healed. Peter 2:22-24

“So here we have Daniel, who
claims to try and be a good person, being abusive and upset, when it is pointed out to him that he was doing something that even the secular humanist gay rights feminist academics think is wrong?”


The key word being academics,
outside of academia, plagiarism is called copyright infringement.  As I’m sure you are aware there are acceptable use provisions in the rules of copyright.  I have to wonder why you are so bothered by this alleged offense unless of course YOU are the author of the letter.  (Probably not, but just checking).  The author of the piece has not seen fit to complain about any of the zillion of times this piece has been used although Lorimar (the only 'for profit' use of it) did compensate him.  On the contrary, the author probably wants the work disseminated as widely as possible in order to get his message out.  In addition, it has been varyingly addressed to Dr. Laura, George Bush and now Senator Brownbeck. 

If you’re objecting merely to the
sin of plagiarism and believe all who have done so should be “outed” then where is your column on Ms. Coulter and her much more widely documented problems in that regard? 

As for Daniel’s passive aggressive attacks on Christianity, why do you even care? I submit that you care about these so-called attacks because you doubt your own
belief system. Christ said the world is supposed to hate you.  It’s how you know you’re separated from the world, special.

46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who
believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For
I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects
me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. John 12:46-48


As for mocking and deriding, duh, that’s called sarcasm and yes, that is the point - to hold hypocrites up to the light and see if they explode.

You say the Christians who insult Daniel may be misguided and not acting according to the bible, but they too believe they are telling the truth.  But shouldn’t they be
held to the standard of the religion they profess to be part of?  Shouldn’t you, as a fellow Christian, be more concerned, like Paul, with chastising them than
arguing with a self-proclaimed non-believer?  I’m sure Daniel could give you their email addresses.

Romans 2:1-3, 19-21

1 You, therefore, have no excuse,
you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same
things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you
will escape God's judgment?

19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?  You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who
say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?  You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?  23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?


As for Steve’s comments, I’m not sure how you can characterize his statements as anti-religious.  I think they are more anti-psycho Christians. 

“It seems Steve's version of 'true christianity' would let him do everything he wants and somehow call this 'love'.” Holy leap to conclusion, Batman, I
don’t know how you got that from them not liking the death threats.  Steve’s version of ‘true Christianity’ prevents him from kicking your butt which is probably something he’d want to do.  So, I think, therefore, you are wrong in this regard.

And you conclude with the ironic
statement: 
“But there is an incredible dearth of evidence at how destructive the homosexual lifestyle is.”

dearth n.

A scarce supply; a lack:
Shortage of food; famine

I think, on that point, you are correct sir. 

Perhaps you should spend more time in prayer and reading your bible (or your dictionary), and you would feel less need to harass those that could care less about your opinion. Unless of course you are just dying for the attention.  Vanity, isn’t that one of those problem sins for you people? 

Sources:

The American Heritage® dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The Bible, author unknown, (New
International Version) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

 
Tempest,
Let us see....you delete my comments on your blog and I am the coward?

You insult me and send off sarcastic and innaccurate emails to senators and I am the one who picks fights?

Please.
 
Revel,
Thanks for at least providing a somewhat dialoguing reply. Although you don't exactly tell me what I am deluded about.

There are plenty of other resources out there about destroying the traditional family and marriage. It has been a push for decades, and if you read Marcuse, Kurtz, Dewey, and many others you would understand that. The pushes for polygamy that are already going on around the world also give good indication this is the case.

As to conscience, well, humans are great at rationalization. Right and wrong is right and wrong, regardless of how we feel about it. History is replete of people who felt they were doing the 'right' thing. Simply feeling that something is okay to do is a somewhat shaky foundation.

I often wonder when people say the "right-wing evangelical church has very little to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ". Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

You see, Jesus always supported the old testament law. The same law that condemns homosexual acts, adultery, lying, stealing and any number of other things. Jesus also told us to love one another. You choose to ignore the first and accept the second. True Christianity is not to be gained by picking and choosing which of Jesus' teachings are to be followed.

Kind Regards
Alan
 
Kat,
You are right. I used the word 'dearth' wrongly. It is one of those things you pick up wrongly. Thanks for pointing that out.

As to your other comments, I don't consider myself religious. But thanks for asking. And for your information, there is a difference between being blunt and not having control over your tongue.

Tempest chose the forum, not me. It was only after he responded immaturely, insulted me repeatedly and then closed my ability to reply to the insults that I chose to post here.

Tempest himself set the standard when he said that you can't offend someone with the truth. But then, I am starting to suspect you are merely trying to shut me up as opposed to deal with the situation in an even-handed manner. If you must know, everybody screws up all the time. There are those who can handle being called on it with humility and there are those who get angry and start insulting anything that moves.

Christian's all accept they are fallible and will not be able to perfectly reflect biblical teachings. Ironically, this perfectly reflects biblical teachings.

suspicious
1. Arousing or apt to arouse suspicion; questionable
2. Tending to suspect; distrustful
3. Expressing suspicion

Seems perfectly clear. There doesn't seem to be any indication that a person has to be trying to sell me something.

I will happily engage in discussion with people who I disagree with. Are you saying that we shouldn't talk to people with different ideas to our own? If so, then why are you bothering to post comments?

And when you talk about following "Christ's example", perhaps you should take into consideration ALL of Christ's example and not just the ones you like. I have not made any threats, nor have responded to insults with insults. Jesus never said we are to not defend ourselves when attacked, just that we aren't meant to respond in kind.

Now as to academics, plagiarism and copyright infringement.

I think you have your definitions wrong. Plagiarism is about passing someone elses work for your own. Copyright infringement is about using someone elses work when you don't have permission to. This is why it is irrelevant as to what the author "wants".

As to why deal with this piece of plagiarism? I have already detailed the situation. I didn't post a column here as a first recourse and I haven't come across Ms Coulter's efforts where i am in a position to know. This post isn't about plagiarism, but about people who try and tell you they try to be a good person and are not anti-christian, but the reality of their actions show what they really mean.

As for your comments about caring...it seems you would like Christian's to sit down, shut up and keep out of the marketplace of ideas which will let people who agree with you control all the things people get to hear. It's not about whether people will get upset at Christianity or me. I fully expect people won't like me. That's why I am not hurt or upset about it. It is about engaging in a discussion, teaching people and generally seeking the truth. Whilst you may want people with different views to your own to shut up, I prefer to have an open discourse.

I'm glad you agree that the Tempest was mocking a deriding. That was one of my main points. Good to see we are on the same page.

I'm sure you would like it if I spent all my time dealing with everyone that you disagree with and ignoring the people you agree with. Of course, my point was not to defend those people who email the Tempest, but that his own stated reasoning implicates himself.

As previously stated, I used the word 'dearth' incorrectly and will fix it.

I find it curious that you don't address the point, but instead avoid it by using this as a red herring.

It seems Kat, that you are simply one of those people who wants anyone who disagrees with them to shut up. You've learned a few tricks about how to try and get them to shut up, and so you think you have some sort of point. Perhaps instead you should be more open-minded and engage people who hold different views to your own.

FYI. The Tempest seems to have gotten very worked up about my 'opinion' so it hardly seems like he 'could care less'.
 
Well, I looked into the Ann Coulter 'plagiarism thing' and if the Daily Kos can call it overblown, I reckon that's a pretty good indication that there isn't a lot to it. I guess Kat never got the memo.

(On another note: It seems Kat does know the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement.... I guess it really was a red herring)
 
Listen, your comments weren't "deleted". Wordpress has had some issues lately. Not that I owe an explaination. I do see one of your comments on my site, so let's just leave the cowardly crap off.

This whole issue (whatever it really is with you) is tiresome. Why don't we just call détente...you are never going to change us, and we are never going to change you.

There, I'll be the bigger man. I'm turning the other cheek, as it were. I'm throwing in the towel just to end all of this tripe. Are you willing to do likewise? Because seriously, this could go on forever, and quite frankly, none of this is worth my very valuable time. Fun little distraction as it was.
 
Oh, and just to be clear, you came to my page first. You attacked me. You accused me of plagairism without even asking or knowing the facts first. You threw the first verbal punch, then got pissy when I decided to hit back.

Simply stated, (and I had to learn this the hard way) not everyone you attack is going to have the same control as Revel & Kat. They have patience for people who preach. I, however, do not.

You should not judge me because I am a reactionist. I simply cannot abide being bullied by those who want me to drink the religious Kool Aid.

You were the one who turned your baseless accusations of plagairism into a gay-bashing. That, to me, seems as immature as my so-called passive aggressive reactions.

Bottom line, if you want stimulating conversation and debate, don't start off with accusations of plagairism before knowing the true context. And splitting hairs (by either of us) doesn't add anything helpful to the debate.
 
I don’t believe I ever suggested that you shut up, on the contrary, I asked you a series of questions and I was hoping you would enlighten us by answering them which would of course require that you continue to speak. I also provided the biblical references as illustration of the Christian principles to which I was referring. I am respectfully asking that you address my questions and not make assumptions about me personally - if as you say this is about open discourse. I will reiterate the questions for you.

Are you setting a good Christian example by being “blunt” with people you know don’t respect your beliefs? You started this debate when you first posted on the Tempest. Did you do so with the intent to persuade their readership to “see the light” or did you have some other goal in mind? You seem to think that there was some violation of right that occurred but the only right we are worried about is the legal one. Was anything done that was illegal, no. Do we care if you think it was immoral and that a good person wouldn’t do something like that. No.

Is it right for you to call someone a thief? It seems your whole purpose in posting is to shame him publicly in some way and to what end, I’d really like to know. (It won’t work by the way – he has no shame and he’s just playing with you like a cat toy).
Do not accuse a man for no reason— when he has done you no harm. Proverbs 3:30.

Should you not follow Christ’s example? I was suggesting you might try being like Christ and ignore Daniel’s insults. Tempest chose the forum, not me. It was only after he responded immaturely, insulted me repeatedly and then closed my ability to reply to the insults that I chose to post here. What was the point of your post - by that I mean what did you intend the result to be of your action?

You seem to be happy that you got Daniel “worked up” but you misinterpret the context. We find you funny. You are providing fodder for our amusement. We could care less about what you think of us or the outcome of this debate (except of course blood shed should be avoided). We are firmly convinced that you cannot be dissuaded from your beliefs and therefore cannot take you seriously. On the other hand, we are always hoping one of you people will stand up and justify your actions in the context of your religion. You know like “Christ told me to post this to save your soul”

As for ...attacks on Christianity, why do you even care? Daniel has his reasons for his dislike of the right wing conservative fanatics and I was raised by one. If you take up their cause, he will just continue to insult you and expose you to public ridicule. Although I will try to remind him to stay away from casting aspersions on your character or manhood. Again why are you wasting your time with this? Go celebrate already:
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5

You said, “Jesus never said we are to not defend ourselves when attacked, just that we aren't meant to respond in kind.” Explain that please and then please explain this passage to me:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. Matthew 5.

Can I please have $10,000?

But shouldn’t they be held to the standard of the religion they profess to be part of? You said “Christian's all accept they are fallible and will not be able to perfectly reflect biblical teachings” to me this sounds like an excuse to be as nasty and evil as they want and still claim to be good Christians. Aren’t you guys supposed to be following your own rules? We non-believers don’t have that problem except for, you know, that pesky constitution and uh, laws.

Shouldn’t you as a fellow Christian be more concerned, like Paul, with chastising them than arguing with a self-proclaimed non-believer?

6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Titus 2:6-8
If their fellow Christians will not call them on their behavior, does that mean they can go around threatening people, desecrating funerals and being generally nasty until judgment day? These actions drive people away from Christianity and aren’t you concerned about that? Isn’t the grand mission to convert everyone to Christianity? How will this be accomplished if you can’t all agree on what Christianity is?

Lastly, please understand, we aren’t trying to be Christians. We don’t want to be Christians. So trying to apply Christian standards to our behavior is pointless. On the other hand, you guys have this big book of stuff you are supposed to be modeling for the world. We’re just suggesting there’s a big group of you all that aren’t doing a very good job. If you want to discuss that further, go for it.

Oh and in this country, our senators work for us and if we want to send them emails - it’s allowed. Brownback is a big boy, he doesn’t need you to protect him from sarcasm. Flooding politician’s inboxes with identical emails is a traditional American political action tactic that is used by both sides. It’s stupid, pointless, but it’s an American right.
 
Daniel - The Tempest said

"Listen, your comments weren't "deleted". Wordpress has had some issues lately. Not that I owe an explaination. I do see one of your comments on my site, so let's just leave the cowardly crap off."

Oh you mean that last comment which simply linked here and doesn’t actually say anything? Please.

You say wordpress was broken and my comments weren’t actually deleted…Yet there is a lack of notification of this wordpress ‘issue’ on their site.

Why should I believe you? You talk about being a ‘good’ person, but as far as I can tell, your notion of ‘good’ seems to be simply based on your feelings. Essentially, what you are doing is using a word that people with a common Judeo-Christian background use to communicate certain concepts with, yet your own definition of that word is different. What do you really mean by ‘good’? What is the foundation for your morality?

"This whole issue (whatever it really is with you) is tiresome. Why don't we just call détente...you are never going to change us, and we are never going to change you."

But I’ve already changed you and you’ve already changed me. This is the nature of discourse and interaction.

"There, I'll be the bigger man. I'm turning the other cheek, as it were. I'm throwing in the towel just to end all of this tripe. Are you willing to do likewise? Because seriously, this could go on forever, and quite frankly, none of this is worth my very valuable time. Fun little distraction as it was.
# posted by Tempest : 12/8/06 9:48 PM
"

Lol….if you were going to be the bigger man, why did you continue to post comments? Is this just another of your little manipulative techniques so that you get the last word whilst appearing to be the bigger man? Please Daniel. Manipulating others is poor form.

"Oh, and just to be clear, you came to my page first. You attacked me. You accused me of plagairism without even asking or knowing the facts first. You threw the first verbal punch, then got pissy when I decided to hit back. "

You have gotten playing the victim down to a fine art haven’t you. How many times have you posted emails deriding and mocking others beliefs? I can tell you would prefer it if people just sat there and let you continue with your ignorant and mocking attempts to appear clever. That’s not going to happen though. When you posted your plagiarised piece ignorantly mocking Christian belief, I called you on it and you decided to start hurling insults and getting your knickers in a twist.

I don’t need to ask for the facts when the facts are there plainly for all to see. You plagiarised a piece and probably felt very self-satisfied and self-righteous about it all. The post itself was evidence enough. That you chose an obviously shallow and incorrect criticism of the bible to copy is even more evidence that you were posting on a topic you know very little about.

"Simply stated, (and I had to learn this the hard way) not everyone you attack is going to have the same control as Revel & Kat. They have patience for people who preach. I, however, do not."

Preach? Attack? Yeah, sure. Calling you on plagiarism is attacking. Just like protecting a person being mugged is attacking. Do you actually believe what you are saying? You did the wrong thing, intentionally or not. Deal with it, learn from it, and move on. Just don’t keep going with this somewhat obvious rationalization and manipulation.

"You should not judge me because I am a reactionist. I simply cannot abide being bullied by those who want me to drink the religious Kool Aid."

Bullied? Yep. Anyone who disagrees with you, or thinks you have done the wrong thing is ‘bullying’ you. The victim mentality continues. You use that a lot don’t you? It lets you feel all self-righteous doesn’t it? It allows you to continue to mock those you disagree with and pretend to be the victim any time anyone tries to respond. Manipulation, manipulation, manipulation.

Let’s see Daniel. The Muslim’s think I am an infidel and going to hell, the Jews think I am a blasphemer and heretic and am going to hell. The atheists think I am deluded or stupid. Many Hindu think I do something bad every time I enjoy a good steak and that I will probably come back in the next life as a cockroach. The world is full of people who think I am immoral, stupid or deluded. It isn’t something I lose sleep over, because I am not so insecure as to be worried about other people’s beliefs which I don’t believe in. I don’t cry and whine about being bullied and attacked whenever someone disagrees with me or thinks their belief is true and mine is not.

"You were the one who turned your baseless accusations of plagairism into a gay-bashing. That, to me, seems as immature as my so-called passive aggressive reactions."

You mean after I accused you correctly of plagiarism in a anti-Christian, and then you decided to bring my religion into it and Revel made several claims about Christianity and homosexual marriage. It’s curious how you left those steps of the discussion out. More manipulation I guess…I’m starting to see the pattern.

You seem happy to bash Christian’s who disagree with you, yet whine when someone says something even remotely against your own beliefs.

"Bottom line, if you want stimulating conversation and debate, don't start off with accusations of plagairism before knowing the true context. And splitting hairs (by either of us) doesn't add anything helpful to the debate.
# posted by Tempest : 12/8/06 10:04 PM
"

The true context? The true context was that you posted someone else’s work with the only attribution on the post being your own name. That’s what’s known as plagiarism. How much rationalisation can you do? You did the wrong thing, build a bridge and get over it.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com