And then you get men that not only work a full day (and it's lunchtime for me, that's why I'm posting), and then spend all their time t home doing the cooking, cleaning, child caring, etc while the wife sits on her ass in front of her computer. Geralizations and assumptions do nothing more than make you look stupid. And as for the above statement, that is the EXACT situation I'm in most of the time, so kiss off.
Luckily for me my GF loves to cook (she was going to be a chef but didn't like 12+ hour days) so I get GREAT meals, I do all the cleaning and work full time (more like play with 'puters all day). I love it, we have a great relationship. So it IS possible for it to work. Unless 1/2 of the couple is a jackass...
what a bollocks. Many of your breadwinners in trenches are wasting their time posting to Slashdot while at the same time, the real trenches are the continuing 24 hour care of screaming children (+ cooking, washing, cleaning etc.). This labour (and its considerable cost if it were to be expressed in terms of money) is simply not factored in your trenches attitude.
Ok... I've thought quite a bit about this, and I just can't figure out. Could you please explain this to me, Who is forcing you to have children? I just don't see it...
Personally I work full time (I'm a tech, if it don't break I ain't busy) so that my GF can develop her webdesign/hosting business along with the female half of another couple, the male half of which also works full time. I would expect the same of her if I was working on a business idea that I thought could get off the ground and needed her to support us for a few months. I don't see anything wrong with this, and I STILL can't figure out who's forcing people to have children...
Actually, involving one's self in a positive way with a person with such needs truly make you a stronger, more compassionate, and wiser person. I believe we often can grow more from difficult circumstances than from easier ones. That said, it is your choice whether to grow stronger or to become bitter...
So pain makes you stronger, ok, I'll buy that... So to be the best possible society we should have mandatory pain sessions once a week to make sure everyone can grow properly... We should force everyone to do things which are painful to them and serve no real purpse, just to Build Character. Hmmm.. I just don't see hardship as a pre-requisite to strength.
Heh. Yeah. Check the bible, where killing, sanctioned by your god, is rampant. In at least once case, your god killed directly (42 children killed by bears, because they insulted a prophet). In many others, the Isralites killed at the direct command of your god. Not just killing, but genocide even.
I've heard a couple of people point to the bear thing, yet I've been unable to locate it despite multiple readings of the Bible. The Isralites were at War with people trying to exterminate them. It wasn't one sided.
Oh, and where are white males being oppressed? Have you checked the Fortune 500 lately? Have you looked at the membership of the House or the Senate? How about the faces of the federal judiciary? I don't discount the reality that there are REMOTE instances of white males being discriminated against. But if you look at the larger picture, you're using an isolated anecdote to rebut an demographic reality.
Oh, and where are black males being oppressed? Have you checked the NBA Roster lately? Have you looked at the membership of the American and National league baseball teams?
Just because a TINY percentage of some set of people has a lot of money or power doesn't meant that the rest of those people are fat and happy and rich as well. Stop trying to spread the actions of a tiny subset of people over the entire group.
No, but I suppose it is too much to ask that Christians don't proselytize. If I have questions, I'll come to you, otherwise you don't get anywhere by doing the hard sell.
Yes, it is too much to ask. Christians are just as free to share their views as anyone else. It in no way forces you to pay any attention but they DO have the right to express their views.
Actually, a better translation is that the users aren't allowed to configure squat.
You're going to make Linux really popular by taking away the user's ability to fine tune their environment. Yep, people are going to love that.
You wouldn't believe how popular that will make you in the lunchroom. People will probably grovel for the privledge of touching the hem of your robe.
Ok, it's patently obvious that you don't work in a corporate environment doing Tech support of any kind. I support 45+ customer service drones, 25+ Data entry typists, and around 100 factory 'puters. In the customer service systems we routinely have viruses that get past the virus scanners because they bring in disks at such a horrendous rate with stupid screesavers and crap on them. They are constantly screwing up their settings and deleting files that they 'didn't need' and then I have to fix it. While this is all great and wonderful since it keeps me getting my paycheck it is definately an argument AGAINST user control in a corporate environment.
I reckon powerpoint is the big missing X. I *still* use MS powerpoint. Everything else linux.
Ok, I might get flamed to hell for this, but... ummm What does powerpoint DO?? I know a lot of the marketing people around here use it, but I've never seen it DO anything? Help me out here?
I don't know what you were trying to say regarding Franco and Hitler, but I'll leave that one alone.
But I had a sense that we were going down the road of affirmative action. The general ignorance of affirmative action (is endemic. You should probably know that of the 1000's of job discrimination cases that EEOC looks at every year, only a few hundred are cases of what you might call "reverse discrimination." Most recently (I believe data from last year - don't have the source in front of me) only about 12 of those were found to be valid.
Furthermore, the occurence of white male christians getting beat out of a job based on mreit has nothing to do with their color. Affirmative action has little to do with past discrimination - only current. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that in a number of cases. This is similar to the misinformation floating about that affirmative action is about quotas and racial preferences. For starters, quotas are illegal (and have been for 20-some years). And as for racial preferences - that's an entirely different conversation.
p.s. the occurences of folks not getting jobs because they are not white male christians is WAY higher than the reverse. Your continuing reference to white male christians is misleading as well - often folks don't get a job because they're simply not qualified; or they are dismissed in a debate (censored?) because what they have to say is irrelavant.
But I digress
It doesn't look like you understood a word I said.
To explain the Hitler/Franco thing. That was YOUR example. I used it to show you what I'm talking about. Just because WMCs opressed people in the past doesn't mean it is right for people to oppress WMCs. One would THINK that those who were opressed would be most willing to remove opression from everyone. But it doesn't seem to work that way. As for the rest, you agreed with everything I said. And GOVERNMENT mandated Qoutas are illegal. The university can look at its student body and say 'We need 33% X, 19% Y, 40% Z, etc...' the same as in the work force. And it DOES happen, and it happens both ways, and a lot of people are working to stop it from happening to everyone, except for White Male Christians. Name me ONE other group that it is socially acceptable and/or politically correct to mock/oppress/discriminate against.
Kintanon
Geem, where have I seen this before...
on
Time Doesn't Exist
·
· Score: 2
Oh YEAH! I already wrote a paper on this... and brought it up on slashdot a while back in a thread. And several people were calling me absurd. Oh well... Silly me.>:)
I think you're true colors (no pun intended) are showing. Are you actually trying to obsolve christianity from the evil of slavery merely because every one else was doing it? That's like saying what Franco was doing was OK 'cause there was this guy named Hitler too...
It's almost shameful what I'm going to do to this...
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of what they did. But Christians did not invent slavery. Period, that's a fact. They DID do a lot to spread it, which was A BAD THING and I apologize for them, but the only thing I can do about it is not engage in slavery.
Now then, in reference to the qouted paragraph above and this paragraph: Furthermore I agree with you (huh?!) that "Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible." The point I was trying to make with you (and didn't do a good job) is that by raising the issue of these poor white christian males, you bring up 300 years of oppression. I understand that you may not have intended to. If you did not intend to, your original post would have been about verbal criticism often being characterized as an attempt to censor. But you didn't. You brought up the spectre of the "poor white guy" who can't get a break - because he's white (!?).
Replace the word 'Franco' with Non-Christians, and the phrase 'guy named Hitler' with Christians. And maybe you'll see my point. It doesn't bother me if a WMC gets beat out of a job on Merit, which happens plenty often, it DOES bother me when a WMC can't get the job(scholarship, whatever) because there isn't enough 'Ethnic Diversity' in the jobforce/student body. IT would EQUALLY bother me if some non WMC was being denied a job or scholarship simply because they were not a WMC. I would stand up for that person and denounce whoever was trying to deny them the opportunity. But if people REALLY want equality and freedom then they need to forget about avenging the past persecution of their ancestors by my ancestors and look at NOW and TOMMOROW and try to help me make the world a better place.
Who are you to say that the life of someone with the mental capacity of a three-year-old deserves to be euthanized? Tell me, have you ever spent much time around a three-year-old? Have you ever been a parent to a three-year-old? A three-year-old has a mental capacity that while not approaching that of someone of your age (16?), is developed enough to experience the same basic wants and needs that drive almost all human beings. If the average three-year-old experiences life in a way that is more advanced than the average dolphin or chimpanzee, then why should a 180 lb. 5'10" adult with the average three-year-old's intellect not afford the same protection that we offer to animals of those species? It really is too bad that this "free" country was such a help in winning WWII, because you would probably be more comfortable living in Nazi Germany.
Lessee, where to begin... Ok, My girlfriend's cousin is around 12, he sits in a stroller or rolls on the floor because his mental development, including motor skills, has not developed beyond a couple of years old. And it never will. He is totally non productive, can not communicate in more than vague noises, and is an emotional, physical, and monetary burden on his parents. Why does he exist?
You should pay a bit of attention to your religious leaders. The 1980 Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution declaring that it was important "to carefully preserve the doctrinal integrity of our institutions"; at this Convention, they proclaimed the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Leading this movement was ex-president of the SBC W.A. Criswell, author of Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True. (Also in 1980 SBC president Bailey Smith stated, "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew." But that's neither here nor there.)
Hmm... Time to change denominations then. Those people have gone insane... I'll just go back to calling myself a Christian. No denominations or anything.
I, and many other non-Christians that I know, are well-versed with Christianity. Having grown up Christian, I've been to church more times than I can reasonably guess (though I estimate it's somewhere around 1,000), and have read the Bible, as well as other theological works, several times. After hearing all the evidence, having grown up with the works of St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, and CS Lewis, I decided Christianity was not for me.
But apparently, this is difficult for some Christians to accept. Does this stop them from coming to my door, e-mailing me, and talking to me at work (co-worker) about converting to Christianity? Apparently not.
Fact is, a lot of non-Christians do have the "relevant information", and still get told the same old s---...
"You need to open your heart to Jesus." "If you don't believe the Bible is True, you're not reading it right." "Your life is so empty without The Lord, you just don't realize it!" "You're just a tool for Satan! Jesus can help you!" "There are no contradictions in the Bible! Anyone who says so just doesn't understand it."
As I said before you can't expect every Christian you know to have been automatically informed by the Christian Spy Network that 'This one has been tried and turned us down, leave him alone.'
The Same Old lines you are getting are the ones that people learn by rote and never research. Someone who opens the conversation with one of those can be taken skeptically. More intelligent Christians will say something they hope will interest you in what they have to say, such as 'Didja know that Peter was able to pick up poison snakes, be bitten and not die?'.
Oh and as for the contradictions thing, the people who wrote the Bible were for the most part men like any other, hence mistakes are possible, not to mention that the thing has been translated a dozen or so times over time...
I think the solution is relatively simple, but will be relatively hard to come by. Within large segments of the *Christian* community, the same kind of bigotry is tolerated and encouraged. How many times to people have to be warned of the "dangers" of homosexuals, and what a "threat" they are to "American Family Values"? And it doesn't stop at simply extoling these pearls of wisdom - this sentiment is often used to catalyze religiously-based political influence. There's a simple, yet applicable saying: "What goes around, comes around." If mainstream Christian groups would see to it to stop attacking people that "diagree" with their religious ideas, the WMC would start to see less of the same behavior toward them. One thing I find particularly vexing...a recent survey revealed that 98% of American's "Believe in God." Whether this qualfies them as "Christian" or some other faith, is unclear. In addition, about half of these believers consider themselves "born-again." If half the population are born-again believers in God, and the vast majority simply believers, why in HELL is the social fabric of this country in such disarray? I almost think that this is an example of hypocrisy at its finest.
Are you suggesting that Christians not be allowed to disapprove of Homosexuality? Or that they not be allowed to pistol whip 'Fags' (reference to something in the widwest a year or so ago)? I agree with the second (No pistol whippin!) but not the first (They can disapprove all they want!). I also have no problems with Christians attempting to convince Homosexuals that they are wrong, so long as no violence or harassment is involved (Bringing the subject up once a week is not harassment).
It is scary that so many people claim to believe in God and claim to be 'Born Again' and yet don't act it. Of course, most people will say that just because they were raised that way without any rational thought. Which means if they haven't thought about it then they won't follow it because they have no idea what it really means to BE Born Again and Believe in God. What we need is more educated Christians, and Christians willing to find out about things before attacking them. Maybe then it would be easier to get people to stop attacking Christians... Heh, Looks like I've come to the conclusion that it's our own damn fault...>:)
I have; I've seen a group of WMCs and WFCs protesting a peaceful meeting of Pagans, and throwing rocks at the Pagans and their small children.
Not to say that Christians are more likely, on average, to be violent, just that they aren't all "saints" by any stretch of the imagination.
Wow, where was this? I'd have stepped into the middle of that in a heartbeat. Christians SHOULD on average be less violent (Though they aren't which is a bad thing). I just hate to see Christians who don't realize they are acting contrary to the specific teachings of Christ.
Because there are matters of fact that can be checked by analyzing other items of fact (did your name appear on ballots, did you receive a sufficient number of votes, etc.) A person's faith is something that is internal to them, and I am not so presumptuous as to be able to claim to see inside another and analyze their mind when it comes to matters of faith.
Don't take it at face value. KKK members are not christians because they do not follow the precepts taught by Christ. In order to be a CHRISTian you must follow the teachings of CHRIST.
So says you. Others might well say otherwise. The KKK member would likely say that what he is doing is as his belief in God has instructed him. How can an objective observer say who's correct?
Go back to that Fact Checking you spoke of, crack open a bible, Oooh look here, 'Love thy Neighbor', ooh one from the old Testament 'Thou Shalt not Kill'... Gee, Those guys are killing people and hate a lot of people, don't look like christians to me...
Do you really think I don't have all the relevant information?:)
Personally, I am probably more familiar with the Bible than plenty of Christians, having read different versions cover to cover several times. For personal amusement I often watch the blubbering Trinity Broadcasting Network, watching female evangelists wearing their own weight in makeup peddle their own personal brand of salvation. Been there, done that.
And that's one of the problems: most non-Christians do have all of the relevant information. But you, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the very fact that they are not Christians means that they must not have all the information. Hasn't it occurred to you that people might have gone over the case for Christianity piece by piece, and decided to pass? Shouldn't you respect that decision, even if you don't agree with it, and even if you happen to believe that we'll eventually pay the price?
/me engages his amazing Psychic powers to determine that you have already been informed.
Seriously, how is each christian supposed to know that you already have heard about christ and don't have questions they might be able to answer? Do you think we have a big spy network or something that passes the info around? It all comes down to the fact the in order to know that you have made a decisions we HAVE to ask about it. And so many people take that as a personal affront and become offended by it.
Also, I really think those Trinity broadcasting people are doing a lot to harm christianity in the eyes of rational people, becuase those weirdos are all insane....
Yes, we all realize that. You had originally wondered WHY WMCs are always lambasted and made to look evil. Well I'm telling you why. Because they have a long history of doing bad things and being associated with nutcase fringe groups. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's WHY WMCs are percieved in a dark light. Of course it's stereotyping but I'm just telling you the reason. Because of that, if you are a "true" christian who happens to be white and male, then obviously you would want to distance yourself from those wierd groups. Same deal with Muslims. Every ignorant person thinks every Muslim or anybody in a turban (BTW, that would be Sikhism) is a terrorist. Of course this is a stupid view and of course "true" Muslims are getting a bad rap because of it.
I never mentioned anything about/religious/ discrimination. I just listed some historical consequences of disagreeing (regardless of religion) with powerful WMC groups.
"Radical muslims are anti-christian, I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists."
I guess I'll have to take that at face value. And these anti-christian groups have powerful political and social influence? Doubt it. The reason Christianity is under fire and not these other groups is because Christian groups (or Christianity-professing groups) are the ones who have the political and social clout to bully people around, and are the ones who for the most part are dangerous. I've never heard of a Wiccan militia, or a Atheist new world order. And I don't know if you know much about Satanism, but their not all evil goat sacrificing blood-drinking orgy-goers like movies like to make out.
You mentioned people not being promoted because of their religious beliefs. That's not as relevant as the last paragraph of your post though, which is the one I find the most interesting.
I personally am in no position to control what the vocal minority of christians say or do, just as muslims aren't in position to control what the vocal minority in their religion does. BUT the broad categorization of 'Christians are closed minded, bigotted, hypocrits.' Is tolerated and encouraged in many places. If you inserted any other category of people in place of Christian no one would tolerate it. Oh and I'm one of the few Christians who has actually bothered to look at what Satanism is, and from what I've seen it's not Satan Worship, it's worship of the Self. Which while being a bit odd has nothing to do with goat sacrificing and what not...>:)
I can see where people would point to the group of powerful christians and say, 'Those people are abusing their power and should be stopped.' But when it is accepted to generally persecute the normal christians I see something wrong in society. I don't allow anyone to persecute other religions or races, so why don't I see anyone standing up for me? I'm trying to speak out against the labelling of all christians by the actions of a few. Just as Muslims have had to fight to avoid being labeled as 'violent fundamentalist whackos who want to blow everyone up' just because there are a few violent muslim factions.
In fact I had never heard the term "WMC" until it was used in the original post. I used it in my post because it was a convenient acronym. I didn't know it was insulting or presumptuous
I started using it because I got tired of typing out 'White Male Christian' so many times.... I didn't think it was offensive...
ps. Just wanted to point out that I'm not criticizing you personally; just the general modus operandi of most people who try to sell others on their brand of salvation, in the belief that they Know the One True Way.
Heh, I know what you mean, I've had other christians come up and try to forcefully convert me because I have long hair. After I stop laughing I have to politely explain to them that the way to win a person over to their view is not by criticising everything you know about them.
My own personal method over spreading the word of God is usually a one time discussion with the person in which if give out all of the relevant information and why I personally choose to believe what I believe. I don't badger, I don't mock, but I will point out holes in whatever they believe if there are holes there. The object is not to forcefull convert everyone on the planet, just to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to learn about Christ and see the information. We want everyone to be able to make informed decisions.
Did he say that anybody was stopping him from doing that? No. That isn't the frickin' point. The point is, he could go out banging on people's doors and passing out leaflets about the God myth, but he chooses not to because doing so would be intrusive, presumptuous, and just plain rude. Same goes for Christians. I'm sure we all appreciate your good intentions, but I'll do what's best for me, thank you very much.. it is arrogant indeed to suggest that you know what's best for everybody else.
But how are you going to effectively judge what is best for you if you do not have all of the relevant information? I agree that going door to door and passing out tracts/forcing your way into peopls homes is very rude and very irritating. But I imagine most people prefer to know all of their options before making a decision, eh?
Wow. I expected this kind of reaction when Katz was talking about the lack of diversity in the technology fields - but at what point did his essay start talking about white males? Isn't Singer predominently Jewish name anyway? This response is going to include responses to some of Kintanon's other posts, since he seems to be on a role.
For the sake of brevity I'm not qouting the entire post, but for reference it is post #417
I mentioned in another post that it wasn't anything Katz said specifically. Just that for some reason the article drew the connection between this incident of free speech being socially supressed and other instances which I have observed which are increasingly being directed at people who are White, Male, and Christians.
Next, I am perfectly ready to admit that Christians have done some terrible things throughout history. But the slave trade was not one of them. Africa had a THRIVING slave trade before any europeans dropped by. All they did was extend it to other countries.
KKK members are NOT real Christians since by definition a Christian must follow the teachings of Christ, and they don't in any way, shape, or form.
I used the term White Male Christian because that is where I see a lot of the vitriolic rhetoric being directed.
I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for MY actions, and to apologize for the actions of anyone representing my faith. But I am not responsible for the actions of everyone calling themselves a christian. Much evil has been done in the name of Christ, for that I apologize but all I can do is attempt to be the best christian I can and to spread my faith without trying to force it on anyone.
My argument was that whenever a WMC points at something and says, 'This is wrong, this offends me.' they are shouted down as trying to censor whatever it is, or trying to oppress someone. Whereas if almost anyone else points at something and says, 'This is wrong, this offends me.' it is removed or the person is persecuted/sued into the ground.
Last time I checked Dr. King WAS a christian. Just because he was black doesn't mean he can't be or wasn't a christian(Very odd view to take there on your part...).
Ghandi was a great man, and I personally believe that God does reward people like him for their work on earth.
Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible.
I had no desire to draw anyone into a debate that did not wish to participate in, apparently I must have said something which hit a nerve though...
As far as I know I am not a racist. In fact, I barely notice race in most of my daily interactions. It's only when items get widely publicized or something odd happens to trigger the thought that I see race. I had no intention of using any racist code words, but I would like to see which words you considered to be racist in my posts.
I'd have to say this post came no where near scorching your Asbestos Draws.>:)
And you *must* believe that either 1) At some point, a fetus is not yet a person and abortion is not murder or 2) any pre-human is as good as human, and terminating it is murder. There is *no* rational middle ground.
Ok, by logical extension of #1, then we must be able to define that point somehow which has not yet been done to anyone's satisfaction. If I'm wrong about this please let me know.
By extension of #2, If abortion were deemed legal then it would be equally legal to kill any random person you wanted to.
After all, what is the difference between the 5 minutes before the baby is born and the 5 minutes after? 3 weeks before? 3 months before? Where is the magic point after which you can say 'This is human, this deserves to live' ? If one is allowable then all are allowable. Until someone shows absolutely where sentient life begins we can not justify abortion as anything other than murder.
Slashdot Mirror
And then you get men that not only work a full day (and it's lunchtime for me, that's why I'm posting), and then spend all their time t home doing the cooking, cleaning, child caring, etc while the wife sits on her ass in front of her computer.
Geralizations and assumptions do nothing more than make you look stupid. And as for the above statement, that is the EXACT situation I'm in most of the time, so kiss off.
Luckily for me my GF loves to cook (she was going to be a chef but didn't like 12+ hour days) so I get GREAT meals, I do all the cleaning and work full time (more like play with 'puters all day). I love it, we have a great relationship. So it IS possible for it to work. Unless 1/2 of the couple is a jackass...
Kintanon
what a bollocks. Many of your breadwinners in trenches are wasting their time posting to Slashdot while at the same time, the real trenches are the continuing 24 hour care of screaming children (+ cooking, washing, cleaning etc.). This labour (and its considerable cost if it were to be expressed in terms of money) is simply not factored in your trenches attitude.
Ok... I've thought quite a bit about this, and I just can't figure out. Could you please explain this to me, Who is forcing you to have children? I just don't see it...
Personally I work full time (I'm a tech, if it don't break I ain't busy) so that my GF can develop her webdesign/hosting business along with the female half of another couple, the male half of which also works full time. I would expect the same of her if I was working on a business idea that I thought could get off the ground and needed her to support us for a few months. I don't see anything wrong with this, and I STILL can't figure out who's forcing people to have children...
Kintanon
Heh, this should be moderated up as 'Fucking HILARIOUS'! This is the funniest post I've read here in 2 or 3 days!
Kintanon
Actually, involving one's self in a positive way with a person with such needs truly make you a stronger, more compassionate, and wiser person. I believe we often can grow more from difficult circumstances than from easier ones. That said, it is your choice whether to grow stronger or to become bitter...
So pain makes you stronger, ok, I'll buy that... So to be the best possible society we should have mandatory pain sessions once a week to make sure everyone can grow properly... We should force everyone to do things which are painful to them and serve no real purpse, just to Build Character.
Hmmm.. I just don't see hardship as a pre-requisite to strength.
Kintanon
Heh. Yeah. Check the bible, where killing, sanctioned by your god, is rampant. In at least once case, your god killed directly (42 children killed by bears, because they insulted a prophet). In many others, the Isralites killed at the direct command of your god. Not just killing, but genocide even.
I've heard a couple of people point to the bear thing, yet I've been unable to locate it despite multiple readings of the Bible. The Isralites were at War with people trying to exterminate them. It wasn't one sided.
Kintanon
Oh, and where are white males being oppressed? Have you checked the Fortune 500 lately? Have you looked at the membership of the House or the Senate? How about the faces of the federal judiciary? I don't discount the reality that there are REMOTE instances of white males being discriminated against. But if you look at the larger picture, you're using an isolated anecdote to rebut an demographic reality.
Oh, and where are black males being oppressed? Have you checked the NBA Roster lately? Have you looked at the membership of the American and National league baseball teams?
Just because a TINY percentage of some set of people has a lot of money or power doesn't meant that the rest of those people are fat and happy and rich as well. Stop trying to spread the actions of a tiny subset of people over the entire group.
Kintanon
No, but I suppose it is too much to ask that Christians don't proselytize. If I have questions, I'll come to you, otherwise you don't get anywhere by doing the hard sell.
Yes, it is too much to ask. Christians are just as free to share their views as anyone else. It in no way forces you to pay any attention but they DO have the right to express their views.
Kintanon
Actually, a better translation is that the users aren't allowed to configure squat.
You're going to make Linux really popular by taking away the user's ability to fine tune their environment. Yep, people are going to love that.
You wouldn't believe how popular that will make you in the lunchroom. People will probably grovel for the privledge of touching the hem of your robe.
Ok, it's patently obvious that you don't work in a corporate environment doing Tech support of any kind. I support 45+ customer service drones, 25+ Data entry typists, and around 100 factory 'puters. In the customer service systems we routinely have viruses that get past the virus scanners because they bring in disks at such a horrendous rate with stupid screesavers and crap on them. They are constantly screwing up their settings and deleting files that they 'didn't need' and then I have to fix it. While this is all great and wonderful since it keeps me getting my paycheck it is definately an argument AGAINST user control in a corporate environment.
Kintanon
I reckon powerpoint is the big missing X.
I *still* use MS powerpoint. Everything else
linux.
Ok, I might get flamed to hell for this, but... ummm What does powerpoint DO?? I know a lot of the marketing people around here use it, but I've never seen it DO anything? Help me out here?
Kintanon
I don't know what you were trying to say regarding Franco and Hitler, but I'll leave that one alone.
But I had a sense that we were going down the road of affirmative action. The general ignorance of affirmative action (is endemic. You should probably know that of the 1000's of job discrimination cases that EEOC looks at every year, only a few hundred are cases of what you might call "reverse discrimination." Most recently (I believe data from last year - don't have the source in front of me) only about 12 of those were found to be valid.
Furthermore, the occurence of white male christians getting beat out of a job based on mreit has nothing to do with their color. Affirmative action has little to do with past discrimination - only current. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on that in a number of cases. This is similar to the misinformation floating about that affirmative action is about quotas and racial preferences. For starters, quotas are illegal (and have been for 20-some years). And as for racial preferences - that's an entirely different conversation.
p.s. the occurences of folks not getting jobs because they are not white male christians is WAY higher than the reverse. Your continuing reference to white male christians is misleading as well - often folks don't get a job because they're simply not qualified; or they are dismissed in a debate (censored?) because what they have to say is irrelavant.
But I digress
It doesn't look like you understood a word I said.
To explain the Hitler/Franco thing. That was YOUR example. I used it to show you what I'm talking about. Just because WMCs opressed people in the past doesn't mean it is right for people to oppress WMCs. One would THINK that those who were opressed would be most willing to remove opression from everyone. But it doesn't seem to work that way.
As for the rest, you agreed with everything I said. And GOVERNMENT mandated Qoutas are illegal. The university can look at its student body and say 'We need 33% X, 19% Y, 40% Z, etc...' the same as in the work force. And it DOES happen, and it happens both ways, and a lot of people are working to stop it from happening to everyone, except for White Male Christians. Name me ONE other group that it is socially acceptable and/or politically correct to mock/oppress/discriminate against.
Kintanon
Oh YEAH! I already wrote a paper on this... and brought it up on slashdot a while back in a thread. And several people were calling me absurd. Oh well... Silly me.>:)
Kintanon
I think you're true colors (no pun intended) are showing. Are you actually trying to obsolve christianity from the evil of slavery merely because every one else was doing it? That's like saying what Franco was doing was OK 'cause there was this guy named Hitler too...
It's almost shameful what I'm going to do to this...
I'm not trying to absolve anyone of what they did. But Christians did not invent slavery. Period, that's a fact. They DID do a lot to spread it, which was A BAD THING and I apologize for them, but the only thing I can do about it is not engage in slavery.
Now then, in reference to the qouted paragraph above and this paragraph:
Furthermore I agree with you (huh?!) that "Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible." The point I was trying to make with you (and didn't do a good job) is that by raising the issue of these poor white christian males, you bring up 300 years of oppression. I understand that you may not have intended to. If you did not intend to, your original post would have been about verbal criticism often being characterized as an attempt to censor. But you didn't. You brought up the spectre of the "poor white guy" who can't get a break - because he's white (!?).
Replace the word 'Franco' with Non-Christians, and the phrase 'guy named Hitler' with Christians. And maybe you'll see my point.
It doesn't bother me if a WMC gets beat out of a job on Merit, which happens plenty often, it DOES bother me when a WMC can't get the job(scholarship, whatever) because there isn't enough 'Ethnic Diversity' in the jobforce/student body. IT would EQUALLY bother me if some non WMC was being denied a job or scholarship simply because they were not a WMC. I would stand up for that person and denounce whoever was trying to deny them the opportunity. But if people REALLY want equality and freedom then they need to forget about avenging the past persecution of their ancestors by my ancestors and look at NOW and TOMMOROW and try to help me make the world a better place.
Kintanon
Who are you to say that the life of someone with the mental capacity of a three-year-old deserves to be euthanized? Tell me, have you ever spent much time around a three-year-old? Have you ever been a parent to a three-year-old? A three-year-old has a mental capacity that while not approaching that of someone of your age (16?), is developed enough to experience the same basic wants and needs that drive almost all human beings. If the average three-year-old experiences life in a way that is more advanced than the average dolphin or chimpanzee, then why should a 180 lb. 5'10" adult with the average three-year-old's intellect not afford the same protection that we offer to animals of those species? It really is too bad that this "free" country was such a help in winning WWII, because you would probably be more comfortable living in Nazi Germany.
Lessee, where to begin...
Ok, My girlfriend's cousin is around 12, he sits in a stroller or rolls on the floor because his mental development, including motor skills, has not developed beyond a couple of years old. And it never will. He is totally non productive, can not communicate in more than vague noises, and is an emotional, physical, and monetary burden on his parents. Why does he exist?
Kintanon
You should pay a bit of attention to your religious leaders. The 1980 Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution declaring that it was important "to carefully preserve the doctrinal integrity of our institutions"; at this Convention, they proclaimed the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Leading this movement was ex-president of the SBC W.A. Criswell, author of Why I Preach That the Bible Is Literally True. (Also in 1980 SBC president Bailey Smith stated, "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew." But that's neither here nor there.)
Hmm... Time to change denominations then. Those people have gone insane... I'll just go back to calling myself a Christian. No denominations or anything.
Kintanon
I, and many other non-Christians that I know, are well-versed with Christianity. Having grown up Christian, I've been to church more times than I can reasonably guess (though I estimate it's somewhere around 1,000), and have read the Bible, as well as other theological works, several times. After hearing all the evidence, having grown up with the works of St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, and CS Lewis, I decided Christianity was not for me.
But apparently, this is difficult for some Christians to accept. Does this stop them from coming to my door, e-mailing me, and talking to me at work (co-worker) about converting to Christianity? Apparently not.
Fact is, a lot of non-Christians do have the "relevant information", and still get told the same old s---...
"You need to open your heart to Jesus."
"If you don't believe the Bible is True, you're not reading it right."
"Your life is so empty without The Lord, you just don't realize it!"
"You're just a tool for Satan! Jesus can help you!"
"There are no contradictions in the Bible! Anyone who says so just doesn't understand it."
As I said before you can't expect every Christian you know to have been automatically informed by the Christian Spy Network that 'This one has been tried and turned us down, leave him alone.'
The Same Old lines you are getting are the ones that people learn by rote and never research. Someone who opens the conversation with one of those can be taken skeptically. More intelligent Christians will say something they hope will interest you in what they have to say, such as 'Didja know that Peter was able to pick up poison snakes, be bitten and not die?'.
Oh and as for the contradictions thing, the people who wrote the Bible were for the most part men like any other, hence mistakes are possible, not to mention that the thing has been translated a dozen or so times over time...
Kintanon
I think the solution is relatively simple, but will be relatively hard to come by. Within large segments of the *Christian* community, the same kind of bigotry is tolerated and encouraged. How many times to people have to be warned of the "dangers" of homosexuals, and what a "threat" they are to "American Family Values"? And it doesn't stop at simply extoling these pearls of wisdom - this sentiment is often used to catalyze religiously-based political influence. There's a simple, yet applicable saying: "What goes around, comes around." If mainstream Christian groups would see to it to stop attacking people that "diagree" with their religious ideas, the WMC would start to see less of the same behavior toward them. One thing I find particularly vexing...a recent survey revealed that 98% of American's "Believe in God." Whether this qualfies them as "Christian" or some other faith, is unclear. In addition, about half of these believers consider themselves "born-again." If half the population are born-again believers in God, and the vast majority simply believers, why in HELL is the social fabric of this country in such disarray? I almost think that this is an example of hypocrisy at its finest.
Are you suggesting that Christians not be allowed to disapprove of Homosexuality? Or that they not be allowed to pistol whip 'Fags' (reference to something in the widwest a year or so ago)?
I agree with the second (No pistol whippin!) but not the first (They can disapprove all they want!). I also have no problems with Christians attempting to convince Homosexuals that they are wrong, so long as no violence or harassment is involved (Bringing the subject up once a week is not harassment).
It is scary that so many people claim to believe in God and claim to be 'Born Again' and yet don't act it. Of course, most people will say that just because they were raised that way without any rational thought. Which means if they haven't thought about it then they won't follow it because they have no idea what it really means to BE Born Again and Believe in God. What we need is more educated Christians, and Christians willing to find out about things before attacking them. Maybe then it would be easier to get people to stop attacking Christians... Heh, Looks like I've come to the conclusion that it's our own damn fault...>:)
Kintanon
I have; I've seen a group of WMCs and WFCs protesting a peaceful meeting of Pagans, and throwing rocks at the Pagans and their small children.
Not to say that Christians are more likely, on average, to be violent, just that they aren't all "saints" by any stretch of the imagination.
Wow, where was this? I'd have stepped into the middle of that in a heartbeat. Christians SHOULD on average be less violent (Though they aren't which is a bad thing). I just hate to see Christians who don't realize they are acting contrary to the specific teachings of Christ.
Kintanon
Because there are matters of fact that can be checked by analyzing other items of fact (did your name appear on ballots, did you receive a sufficient number of votes, etc.) A person's faith is something that is internal to them, and I am not so presumptuous as to be able to claim to see inside another and analyze their mind when it comes to matters of faith.
Don't take it at face value. KKK members are not christians because they do not follow the precepts taught by Christ. In order to be a CHRISTian you must follow the teachings of CHRIST.
So says you. Others might well say otherwise. The KKK member would likely say that what he is doing is as his belief in God has instructed him. How can an objective observer say who's correct?
Go back to that Fact Checking you spoke of, crack open a bible, Oooh look here, 'Love thy Neighbor', ooh one from the old Testament 'Thou Shalt not Kill'... Gee, Those guys are killing people and hate a lot of people, don't look like christians to me...
Kintanon
Do you really think I don't have all the relevant information? :)
Personally, I am probably more familiar with the Bible than plenty of Christians, having read different versions cover to cover several times.
For personal amusement I often watch the blubbering Trinity Broadcasting Network, watching female evangelists wearing their own weight in makeup peddle their own personal brand of salvation. Been there, done that.
And that's one of the problems: most non-Christians do have all of the relevant information. But you, on the other hand, mistakenly assume that the very fact that they are not Christians means that they must not have all the information. Hasn't it occurred to you that people might have gone over the case for Christianity piece by piece, and decided to pass? Shouldn't you respect that decision, even if you don't agree with it, and even if you happen to believe that we'll eventually pay the price?
/me engages his amazing Psychic powers to determine that you have already been informed.
Seriously, how is each christian supposed to know that you already have heard about christ and don't have questions they might be able to answer? Do you think we have a big spy network or something that passes the info around?
It all comes down to the fact the in order to know that you have made a decisions we HAVE to ask about it. And so many people take that as a personal affront and become offended by it.
Also, I really think those Trinity broadcasting people are doing a lot to harm christianity in the eyes of rational people, becuase those weirdos are all insane....
Kintanon
Yes, we all realize that. You had originally wondered WHY WMCs are always lambasted and made to look evil. Well I'm telling you why. Because they have a long history of doing bad things and being associated with nutcase fringe groups. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's WHY WMCs are percieved in a dark light. Of course it's stereotyping but I'm just telling you the reason. Because of that, if you are a "true" christian who happens to be white and male, then obviously you would want to distance yourself from those wierd groups. Same deal with Muslims. Every ignorant person thinks every Muslim or anybody in a turban (BTW, that would be Sikhism) is a terrorist. Of course this is a stupid view and of course "true" Muslims are getting a bad rap because of it.
/religious/ discrimination. I just listed some historical consequences of disagreeing (regardless of religion) with powerful WMC groups.
I never mentioned anything about
"Radical muslims are anti-christian, I've run into plenty of Anti-christian atheists. Anti-christian Wiccans. Anti-christian Satanists."
I guess I'll have to take that at face value. And these anti-christian groups have powerful political and social influence? Doubt it. The reason Christianity is under fire and not these other groups is because Christian groups (or Christianity-professing groups) are the ones who have the political and social clout to bully people around, and are the ones who for the most part are dangerous. I've never heard of a Wiccan militia, or a Atheist new world order. And I don't know if you know much about Satanism, but their not all evil goat sacrificing blood-drinking orgy-goers like movies like to make out.
You mentioned people not being promoted because of their religious beliefs. That's not as relevant as the last paragraph of your post though, which is the one I find the most interesting.
I personally am in no position to control what the vocal minority of christians say or do, just as muslims aren't in position to control what the vocal minority in their religion does. BUT the broad categorization of 'Christians are closed minded, bigotted, hypocrits.' Is tolerated and encouraged in many places. If you inserted any other category of people in place of Christian no one would tolerate it.
Oh and I'm one of the few Christians who has actually bothered to look at what Satanism is, and from what I've seen it's not Satan Worship, it's worship of the Self. Which while being a bit odd has nothing to do with goat sacrificing and what not...>:)
I can see where people would point to the group of powerful christians and say, 'Those people are abusing their power and should be stopped.' But when it is accepted to generally persecute the normal christians I see something wrong in society. I don't allow anyone to persecute other religions or races, so why don't I see anyone standing up for me? I'm trying to speak out against the labelling of all christians by the actions of a few. Just as Muslims have had to fight to avoid being labeled as 'violent fundamentalist whackos who want to blow everyone up' just because there are a few violent muslim factions.
Kintanon
In fact I had never heard the term "WMC" until it was used in the original post. I used it in my post because it was a convenient acronym. I didn't know it was insulting or presumptuous
I started using it because I got tired of typing out 'White Male Christian' so many times.... I didn't think it was offensive...
Kintanon
ps. Just wanted to point out that I'm not criticizing you personally; just the general modus operandi of most people who try to sell others on their brand of salvation, in the belief that they Know the One True Way.
Heh, I know what you mean, I've had other christians come up and try to forcefully convert me because I have long hair. After I stop laughing I have to politely explain to them that the way to win a person over to their view is not by criticising everything you know about them.
My own personal method over spreading the word of God is usually a one time discussion with the person in which if give out all of the relevant information and why I personally choose to believe what I believe. I don't badger, I don't mock, but I will point out holes in whatever they believe if there are holes there.
The object is not to forcefull convert everyone on the planet, just to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to learn about Christ and see the information. We want everyone to be able to make informed decisions.
Kintanon
Did he say that anybody was stopping him from doing that? No. That isn't the frickin' point. The point is, he could go out banging on people's doors and passing out leaflets about the God myth, but he chooses not to because doing so would be intrusive, presumptuous, and just plain rude. Same goes for Christians. I'm sure we all appreciate your good intentions, but I'll do what's best for me, thank you very much .. it is arrogant indeed to suggest that you know what's best for everybody else.
But how are you going to effectively judge what is best for you if you do not have all of the relevant information? I agree that going door to door and passing out tracts/forcing your way into peopls homes is very rude and very irritating. But I imagine most people prefer to know all of their options before making a decision, eh?
Kintanon
Wow. I expected this kind of reaction when Katz was talking about the lack of diversity in the technology fields - but at what point did his essay start talking about white males? Isn't Singer predominently Jewish name anyway? This response is going to include responses to some of Kintanon's other posts, since he seems to be on a role.
For the sake of brevity I'm not qouting the entire post, but for reference it is post #417
I mentioned in another post that it wasn't anything Katz said specifically. Just that for some reason the article drew the connection between this incident of free speech being socially supressed and other instances which I have observed which are increasingly being directed at people who are White, Male, and Christians.
Next, I am perfectly ready to admit that Christians have done some terrible things throughout history. But the slave trade was not one of them. Africa had a THRIVING slave trade before any europeans dropped by. All they did was extend it to other countries.
KKK members are NOT real Christians since by definition a Christian must follow the teachings of Christ, and they don't in any way, shape, or form.
I used the term White Male Christian because that is where I see a lot of the vitriolic rhetoric being directed.
I'm fully prepared to take responsibility for MY actions, and to apologize for the actions of anyone representing my faith. But I am not responsible for the actions of everyone calling themselves a christian. Much evil has been done in the name of Christ, for that I apologize but all I can do is attempt to be the best christian I can and to spread my faith without trying to force it on anyone.
My argument was that whenever a WMC points at something and says, 'This is wrong, this offends me.' they are shouted down as trying to censor whatever it is, or trying to oppress someone. Whereas if almost anyone else points at something and says, 'This is wrong, this offends me.' it is removed or the person is persecuted/sued into the ground.
Last time I checked Dr. King WAS a christian. Just because he was black doesn't mean he can't be or wasn't a christian(Very odd view to take there on your part...).
Ghandi was a great man, and I personally believe that God does reward people like him for their work on earth.
Anyone who invokes christianity as a reason to hate someone needs to re-read their Bible.
I had no desire to draw anyone into a debate that did not wish to participate in, apparently I must have said something which hit a nerve though...
As far as I know I am not a racist. In fact, I barely notice race in most of my daily interactions. It's only when items get widely publicized or something odd happens to trigger the thought that I see race. I had no intention of using any racist code words, but I would like to see which words you considered to be racist in my posts.
I'd have to say this post came no where near scorching your Asbestos Draws.>:)
Kintanon
And you *must* believe that either 1) At some point, a fetus is not yet a person and abortion is not murder or 2) any pre-human is as good as human, and terminating it is murder. There is *no* rational middle ground.
Ok, by logical extension of #1, then we must be able to define that point somehow which has not yet been done to anyone's satisfaction. If I'm wrong about this please let me know.
By extension of #2, If abortion were deemed legal then it would be equally legal to kill any random person you wanted to.
After all, what is the difference between the 5 minutes before the baby is born and the 5 minutes after? 3 weeks before? 3 months before? Where is the magic point after which you can say 'This is human, this deserves to live' ? If one is allowable then all are allowable. Until someone shows absolutely where sentient life begins we can not justify abortion as anything other than murder.
Kintanon