Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis paragraph demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a blatant despicable liar and have been lying all along about this topic. You could not possibly have 'refused to fan the flames' without being aware of the flames, nor can you honestly accuse anyone else of fanning the flames and his hatred if you are blissfully unaware of the contents of the threads in question. You even seem to have a pretty good idea of the level of hatred dasa expressed even though you claim to have come by that information via a third party. You could be grossly misrepresenting dasa - the very crime you accused Duchess of who also came about information from a third party on this site. Duchess was decent enough to state that she did not automatically take the accusations as truth and instead sought to verify the validity of the claims, for which you got her banned - presumably because you feared what she might find.
As I stated i was unaware of the content of his posts until Rank Outsider gave a brief summation. As far as i am aware I was one of the few contributors who refused to fan the flames of his hatred while you were there, bellows in hand oxygenating his hatred until it reached a white heat of loathing for every living creature, all the while throwing all kinds of combustibles on to Dasa's pyre of hatred!
His inability to carry them out made them the realm of pure fantasy, a perfectly acceptable and legally established defence.
Only if his intention to carry them out was what was on trial. It wasn't. Hate speech is illegal regardless of whether you wish to carry out any actual actions, and there is little doubt that dasa was guilty of hate speech which is a serious crime in his country - and probably your country too.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou are a despicable liar could hardly be describes as original, but if its the best you can do then so be it.
This paragraph demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a blatant despicable liar and have been lying all along about this topic. You could not possibly have 'refused to fan the flames' without being aware of the flames, nor can you honestly accuse anyone else of fanning the flames and his hatred if you are blissfully unaware of the contents ...[text shortened]... s guilty of hate speech which is a serious crime in his country - and probably your country too.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDasa (that grotesque monster) existed years before I came to the site.
As I stated i was unaware of the content of his posts until Rank Outsider gave a brief summation. As far as i am aware I was one of the few contributors who refused to fan the flames of his hatred while you were there, bellows in hand oxygenating his hatred until it reached a white heat of loathing for every living creature, all the while throwing a ...[text shortened]... fiendish creator bear the responsibility! and here you talk of sanity? I mock such pretensions.
Try again.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe openly supported genocide before Ghost of a Duke came along. You either know this, contradicting your earlier claims to ignorance, or you do not know this contradicting your current claims regarding his mildness.
yes but he was just a simple mild mannered janitor and animal rights activist until you turned him into a fiend Frankenwendy!
Originally posted by googlefudge...I agree with much of what you say. Also, I realize there is reason for confusion. You are forgiven for being wrong.
Well that's nice, but given that we atheists make clear that atheism is about the non-belief in any and all gods ...
I'm saying that babies are not atheist. I quote yet another example of your cognitive dissonance on this subject. Babies are not in the camp that makes clear what you claim. They are consistently silent on the issue.
I agree that you are completely right, if we limit our world-view to one built on standard definitions, or on the opinions of biased self-serving organizations. But since you want to hold court on a philosophical issue, you should at least learn to use the appropriate definitions correctly.
Babies are not in the game. They have no dog in the fight. Babies have no belief and no disbelief in atheism or in theism.
I'm an atheist, btw. I'm also rational, skeptical and pragmatic. Your motives for your crusade to make babies into atheists has no power here.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by apathistYet again you completely ignore all my points and evidence demonstrating you wrong.
I agree with much of what you say. Also, I realize there is reason for confusion. You are forgiven for being wrong.
I'm saying that babies are not atheist. I quote yet another example of your cognitive dissonance on this subject. Babies are not in the camp that makes clear what you claim. They are consistently silent on the issue.
I agree that you ar ...[text shortened]... cal and pragmatic. Your motives for your crusade to make babies into atheists has no power here.
Could you at least acknowledge the fact that your own links didn't agree with you and instead
agreed with me??
I AM using the definitions correctly, you are not.
My definition [the one I use and is used by the major atheist organisations] is beautifully simple and robust.
There is absolutely no need to change it, make it more complicated, or add caveats, etc.
An atheist is anyone not a theist.
A theist is anyone who has a belief in at least one god.
Therefore an atheist is anyone who lacks belief in gods.
And we're done. It's just that elegant and simple.
You don't like it because you have this irrational need to make people have to consciously 'take sides' or
form an opinion on the subject before being classified...
For what POSSIBLE purpose?
In what possible way does adding messy extra requirements make things clearer or assist anyone in any way?
The ONLY benefit is to theists. Because if babies are born atheists and have to be indoctrinated into religions
[which they do] then that hurts them when they make claims that we all really do know that gods exist [which
many do believe as evinced by those on this site alone if nothing else] and makes it clear that religion is something
done to defenceless children. And also because it muddies the waters, sows confusion, and allows them to insert
their own malformed definitions of atheism into the mix.
My definition is clear. It is robust. It is etymologically sound. Logical. And used by all the major atheist organisations
and is the meaning used by their members and others to describe themselves and each other.
My definition is correct. Yours is an incoherent mess, and is wrong.
And no amount of stamping your foot and shouting the word 'philosophy' at me is going to change that fact.
Any philosopher dim or uninformed enough to share your position is wrong, they are not the arbiters of what
the word means.
Atheist is the label of a peoples, and far to important to be left to philosophers.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou dismissed marital rape as "not logically possible".
You I on the other hand have never been an apologist for rape and this is what makes Duchess64's shameful attempt at vilification so reprehensible because both the gravity of the claim and the baseless nature of the claim made it worthy of censure and therein lies the difference.
You have steadfastly defended the cover up of the rape of children by members of your organization.
You have sought to play down the incidence of these rapes and other sexual assaults on minors, despite the evidence, and tried to dismiss or discredit the rape victims and their testimony.
You recently tried to make some sort of a joke about the allegations of serious sex crimes, including rape, against Bill Cosby by choosing to describe them as "infidelities".
And when Dasa justified what was clearly rape under certain circumstances, even according to his own offered text, you came to his defence and described his critics as "banal".
I think your stances on rape ~ which may well be sincere and not a part of your deliberately daft and unpleasant comedy routine ~ are thoroughly abhorrent and you deserve the criticism you get.