Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 03-26-2004, 05:42 AM

Well, let's just sample some of this idiocy, shall we?

Quote:

julbon: In the final analysis, you as a man, are creating your own morals according to your value judgements. That is atheism.

Wrong. That is julbon's stereotype of atheism, which despite half a dozen exchanges with atheists now on that thread, julbson lacks the reading comprehension to understand.

Quote:

But atheism does not have an absolute standard with which to decide which, of man's many moral codes is correct and which is not correct. Therefore, those with power may impose their moral code on others and these others have no absolute standard to use to claim that theirs is better.

Wildlifer has done a fairly decent job of exposing the hypocrisy of this statement, under the pains of being banned, of course. If julbon has access to this access to this absolute standard, I'd think many in the world would like to see it. The problem with people who resort to "absolutes" is their blindness to the realities of social dynamics. It's as if people like julbon think that everyone can in fact co-exist in complete isolation with uniquely different moral systems. Not only that, julbon ignores the reality that morals are updated even in the here and now which might not have been relevant thousands of years ago. For instance, what is the morality of running red lights according to the Bible? What is the morality of posessing tactical and strategic nuclear weapons? What is the morality of releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or causing large ozone depletion? What is the morality of obesity and its ensuing medical sequelae?

Quote:

julbon: This is the fact which you cannot escape. This system works well with people willing to abide by your code, such as the Aztecs who, I believe, burned girls and children as human sacrifices to the gods.

A veiled insult, which no doubt if anyone tries to bring up will result in his being banned. Just to clarify for the rest of us, Plognark, your code is not like the Aztecs right?

Quote:

julbon: Another case was that of Suttee in India. It was the practice of some provinces and castes to burn the wife alive as they burned her deceased husband. Now, here we had the Indian morality and the British, in charge, were Christians. Thank God they were Christians, because they banned this practice despite the protestations of the Indians about violations of their moral code.

More patronizing bullshit.

Quote:

julbon: Wildlifer, the atheist regimes of the 20 century killed more people in a shorter time period than any other regimes or tribe in the history of the world. True, there have been wars fought over religious differences, for territory, for adventure, for domination, etc. All of these combined have not killed as many people than the atheist regimes of the 20th century!

Wait, did I just read a justification of a moral tradition based on body counts??? LOL. Whatever.

Plognark · 03-26-2004, 07:07 AM

If anyone is interested, the thread over there is so fascinating that i've been saving the entire thing into a word document. This is also in no small part to my mis-trust of julbon. He's too quick to edit old posts and switch things around. I can at least keep them semi-honest.

Once I get the chance i'm going to save that exchange on my own web-site for posterity

Especially since I really have nothing else on it

Well, not much anyhow

Richiyaado · 03-26-2004, 07:32 AM

One caveat: Julbon is not "them."

Julbon is somewhat unique in my experience. He will jump on anyone (he generally begins by demanding an apology, followed quickly... at the GJ, anyway... with threats of banning)... Leonard... me... mturner... Leo at ARN... anyone with the temerity to challenge any particular of the "canonical world view." Remember, there can be only one canonical world view, and Julbon is its sole possessor! (Apart from religion and politics, I must say he generally has it right with respect to film and music, of course!)

Principia · 03-26-2004, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Julbon is somewhat unique in my experience. [...] Remember, there can be only one canonical world view, and Julbon is its sole possessor!

Well, then there's Douglas Bender. . .

And mturner. . .

oh nevermind.

Richiyaado · 03-26-2004, 08:15 AM

Yes, Douglas more so than mturner, perhaps. But way too many CWVs, certainly.

pangloss · 03-26-2004, 09:47 AM

And then there is the "look at God's programming" tool - nobody/junkyardfrog.

He is really inhigh gear at Brainstorms , trying oh-so-hard to legitimize his DNA=computer(God's)program schtick...

mental midgets abound....

Plognark · 03-26-2004, 10:14 AM

Ironic that the pattern seeking nature of the human mind can just as easily lead some people to illogical and un-supported beliefs and assertions as easily as it can lead to tremendous breakthroughs

Richiyaado · 03-26-2004, 01:19 PM

Clue me in, Pangloss. Who, or what, is served by referring to nobody/JunkYardFrog as you do? Whatever else he may be, I have never known him to be unkind or vicious towards you or anyone else. Plus, so far as I'm aware, he has never visited this board.

I think Leonard is correct when he says the moderators here tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to unwarranted, yet repeated personal attacks (here, blatant name calling), in clear violation of the rules as stated in this board's FAQs.

So what gives?

Viti · 03-26-2004, 01:25 PM

I somehow missed this thread which doesn't seem to belong in The Lounge either. My apologies. I am sending this thread to ~E~

As to this question

Quote:

I think Leonard is correct when he says the moderators here tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to unwarranted, yet repeated personal attacks (here, blatant name calling), in clear violation of the rules as stated in this board's FAQs.

So what gives?

The rules against name calling and attacks only apply to registered IIDB users. Is nobody/JunkYardFrog registered here? If so, the moderators can step in.

Richiyaado · 03-26-2004, 01:54 PM

...a rather gaping loophole, if you ask me. And at odds with the FAQs, which also say something about maintaining a high standard of discourse, do they not?

03-26-2004, 07:32 AM	#53
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Julbon One caveat: Julbon is not "them." Julbon is somewhat unique in my experience. He will jump on anyone (he generally begins by demanding an apology, followed quickly... at the GJ, anyway... with threats of banning)... Leonard... me... mturner... Leo at ARN... anyone with the temerity to challenge any particular of the "canonical world view." Remember, there can be only one canonical world view, and Julbon is its sole possessor! (Apart from religion and politics, I must say he generally has it right with respect to film and music, of course!)

03-26-2004, 01:19 PM	#58
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	nobody Clue me in, Pangloss. Who, or what, is served by referring to nobody/JunkYardFrog as you do? Whatever else he may be, I have never known him to be unkind or vicious towards you or anyone else. Plus, so far as I'm aware, he has never visited this board. I think Leonard is correct when he says the moderators here tend to turn a blind eye when it comes to unwarranted, yet repeated personal attacks (here, blatant name calling), in clear violation of the rules as stated in this board's FAQs. So what gives?

03-26-2004, 01:54 PM	#60
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	At best... ...a rather gaping loophole, if you ask me. And at odds with the FAQs, which also say something about maintaining a high standard of discourse, do they not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2004, 07:07 AM	#52
Plognark Contributor Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 14,952	If anyone is interested, the thread over there is so fascinating that i've been saving the entire thing into a word document. This is also in no small part to my mis-trust of julbon. He's too quick to edit old posts and switch things around. I can at least keep them semi-honest. Once I get the chance i'm going to save that exchange on my own web-site for posterity Especially since I really have nothing else on it Well, not much anyhow

03-26-2004, 08:15 AM	#55
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Yes, Douglas more so than mturner, perhaps. But way too many CWVs, certainly.

03-26-2004, 09:47 AM	#56
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	And then there is the "look at God's programming" tool - nobody/junkyardfrog. He is really inhigh gear at Brainstorms , trying oh-so-hard to legitimize his DNA=computer(God's)program schtick... mental midgets abound....

03-26-2004, 10:14 AM	#57
Plognark Contributor Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 14,952	Ironic that the pattern seeking nature of the human mind can just as easily lead some people to illogical and un-supported beliefs and assertions as easily as it can lead to tremendous breakthroughs

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.