Anti-Semitism is bad mostly because of the clearly vicious and undeserved genocide committed during WWII. That being said, it's not treated in the same light as other genocides, but Ukrainians and Cambodians generally don't own media conglomerates either. It's a bit of exposure. Here in America and the West, black slavery is considered a big deal. But there are more people in slavery or slave-like conditions at this moment in time than all the ones raised and rears under the lash in America. But because racial inequality is only just eroding, similar to how we are still only a few generations from the Holocaust, it's most prominent. Humans as a whole aren't big on history, and their actual understanding of the web of events which lead to today is muddy at best.
That being said, there's always some group who hates a religion, usually for silly reasons like conflict in dogma or aggressive preaching, wearing the wrong hat, eating the wrong animal, etc. But that's what you get when you put a code of ethics put together thousands of years ago by people who could barely read silently if at all and say it's more important than the non-violent, non-abrasive person sitting beside you.
What exactly do you mean here? Do you think the moral status of anti-Semitism was debatable prior to the Holocaust? Perhaps you think there is a causal link between anti-Semitism and unjustifiable mass murder, a link that you might not think exists between say, anti-Arabism (or whatever the term is) and unjustifiable mass murder...
What are you trying to establish here, other than a tired cynicism with regards to humanity's abilities to treat all moral obscenities equally.
What is it in the code of ethics put together a thousand years ago that causes this conflict? What do the code of ethics produced a thousand years ago have that modern political ideologies (which lead to the deaths of thousands) don't have? If people only had their pop-music tastes to differentiate themselves from other groups, do you think the already heated/hateful Bieber debates would lead to similar death tolls?
Now, for visual aids...
(please log in to view the image)
Inevitably you will...
(please log in to view the image)
Why?
(please log in to view the image)
So does Sean Hannity...
(please log in to view the image)
That religion makes people good would be a defence/explanation of its position within a society, a case even non-believers might (and do) make. I'm not sure which particular religion has ever used the moral quality of its adherents as an argument to justify its creedal claims. Mr. Mencken is stroking the cat but feeding the dog.
(please log in to view the image) [/QUOTE]
Presumably for the same reason that there is still carbon in the universe outside of human beings.
Re: Anti-Semitism bad, but Anti-other religions, okay?
Because non-theists with micropenis (Such as Shakyamunison and Stealth Moose for example) need someone to pick on to make their penises seem less tiny.
Sorry, I understand the sentence but, not knowing the history, I'm unclear as to whether this is some sort of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a theist) or another kind of sarcasm (in which i take you to be a non-theist).
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is his plan.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
He was 100% serious. The penis shortage in this thread is magnificent.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
An agnostic is NOT an Atheist but smarter. Agnostics are usually under the position that "religion is possible, I just look at evidence" and distrust atheism because of embarasment, reputation or some other arbitrary emotional reason.
An agnostic treats the stances "wizard in clouds created everything" vs "that story is bullshit" as equal stances. That doesn't make you smarter, that's a delusion like theists are deluded. I could just as easily say "I misplaced my keys in another pocket last night" vs "A fairy took my keys and is testing my faith until it returns them to me" as equal stance, and even though there isn't any evidence to disprove fairies, critical thought would dictate the more sensible theory....not due to what the masses believe, but due to consistent logic.
Atheists are smarter than agnostics, agnostics are weaselly atheists or theists and will eventually be shown as one or the other.
Good job using a blanket statement for all Agnostics
No different than someone saying "All Atheist are religion hating chronic masturbators with daddy issues.", but that would be silly and stupid and stupidly silly.
Re: Anti-Semitism bad, but Anti-other religions, okay?
I'm against most hate-ons for religious groups- or, more specifically, for the people that follow them.
I'd like it if people stopped being religious, but on the flip side, I do very much hate, "Let's go and invade all the Muslim countries!" or "All Muslims are terrorists!" crap.
I think the way to handle someone having a belief system you don't like is to try and encourage them to change via positive methods like discussion.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 3rd, 2014 02:11 PM
