ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , Atheism Plus , Free Thought Blogs

Reply
Old 2nd December 2013, 10:54 AM   #201
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I question the underlying principle being applied here. Is it that complaining about (or, in general, attending to) a lesser matter is bad, when a more important matter has also been raised?
Fair point. I'd be perfectly fine with criticism of someone using sexist slurs to condemn racist behavior. And, as squeegee points out, this is a different venue and doesn't detract at all from the news coverage this story is getting.

Squeegee, I think that a definition of racism or racist that hinges on the subjective intent of individuals is effectively useless. I understand that people here disagree with me on that.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 11:34 AM   #202
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Squeegee, I think that a definition of racism or racist that hinges on the subjective intent of individuals is effectively useless.
I haven't made any mention of intent. You seem to be arguing against yourself again. Why did you ask me to clarify what I meant if you were then just going to ignore what I said and make something up instead?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 11:51 AM   #203
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
OK, forget intent. You're defining whether something is racist based on someone's internal thought processes, right? That's what I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
... imagining them to have a certain skin colour, and then imagining their motives based on nothing but that skin colour.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 12:41 PM   #204
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
I'm saying that something that someone has done is racist based on their actions. If you're defining what they've done as "internal thought processes", then all prejudice is also nothing but "internal thought processes" and in one fell swoop you've magically eliminated all prejudice of any kind, anywhere.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 01:51 PM   #205
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I'm glad you've had good experiences, but there are too many stories and recordings of TSA agents not accommodating medical need or being abusive towards passengers to believe that everyone having a hard time in security was looking for trouble.
To the point that I don't think this type of complaint is 'an A+ thing'.

Resentment of public employees with authority is not a special feature of minority groups.

The rationalizations probably vary, though.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 02:06 PM   #206
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,070
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
...
BTW My working assumption on Christianity is it was concocted in the 3rd century by the Roman Empire (by White Europeans) to hoax the Jews into obedience. That would make Christianity a white people's religion invented for, and still used for, bullying non-whites (South Korea, Philippines, parts of Africa, Latin America, etc.). Notice the current Pope, celebrate for being from Latin America, is actually a White Spaniard in heritage.
I'm not really part of the A+ discussion, so excuse me for butting in, but I have to address this.

You can assume that, if you want to ignore historical facts.

You just look at the most powerful Christian Churches now and assume it was always that way. It wasn't.

To say that Islam is a "Brown Person's" religion and that Christianity isn't, ignores the roots of Islam. It grew out of Judaism and Christianity. It is part of the same Theological tradition.

Looking at the bigger picture, all three religions are Abrahamic in origin. They are also practiced by people of all different races.

I realise you aren't taking Ceepolk's side in this, but I still don't think you can really call Xtianity a "white" religion.

There are lots of "white" churches, but that is a bit different.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 02:09 PM   #207
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
That depends on the kind of SJW you're talking to. Some are perfectly reasonable and would see how what you're seeing there is racism. However for some none of that would be considered racism because the people doing it aren't white because "power + privilege".

Just remember the one A+er (Setar? Ceepolk? It started with a "se" sound.) who said that you can't criticise Islam because brown people.
Setar has gone so far as to suggest that one shouldn't criticize terrorism carried out by Muslims.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 02:49 PM   #208
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
There are 2.2b Christians in the world. Of those, roughly 800m live in Northern America and Europe. The other 1.4b are more likely to be non-white than they are white.

The countries with the largest Christian populations (total, not percentage) are, in order:

The USA, 245m
Brazil, 173m
Mexico, 108m
Russia, 105m
Philippines, 86m
Nigeria, 78m
China, 68m
DRP of the Congo, 63m
Germany, 57m
Ethiopia, 52m

I think that unless you're either from the USA or Europe and have a parochial view of the world, that there's a better case to be made for Christianity being a religion of brown people than there is for it being a religion of white people.

Figures from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arts-and-maps/
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 02:52 PM   #209
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Skiltch View Post
Leadership matters. The group should be led by people who know how to lead and have sufficient resources (or 'spoons') to do so, not necessarily by people with an axe to grind or by people who are more oppressed than anyone else in the group. If all the people at the top do is vent, then the group won't get anything done besides internal chatter.
It also helps if your leaders aren't mentally ill.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 02:54 PM   #210
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,070
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There are 2.2b Christians in the world. Of those, roughly 800m live in Northern America and Europe. The other 1.4b are more likely to be non-white than they are white.

The countries with the largest Christian populations (total, not percentage) are, in order:

The USA, 245m
Brazil, 173m
Mexico, 108m
Russia, 105m
Philippines, 86m
Nigeria, 78m
China, 68m
DRP of the Congo, 63m
Germany, 57m
Ethiopia, 52m

I think that unless you're either from the USA or Europe and have a parochial view of the world, that there's a better case to be made for Christianity being a religion of brown people than there is for it being a religion of white people.

Figures from here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arts-and-maps/
Thanks Squeegee.

Definitely a lot of non-white Xtians, I hope this doesn't mean we have to stop taunting Fundies.

If so, I'm quitting the Atheist club.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 03:03 PM   #211
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I'm not really part of the A+ discussion, so excuse me for butting in, but I have to address this.

You can assume that, if you want to ignore historical facts.

You just look at the most powerful Christian Churches now and assume it was always that way. It wasn't.

To say that Islam is a "Brown Person's" religion and that Christianity isn't, ignores the roots of Islam. It grew out of Judaism and Christianity. It is part of the same Theological tradition.

Looking at the bigger picture, all three religions are Abrahamic in origin. They are also practiced by people of all different races.

I realise you aren't taking Ceepolk's side in this, but I still don't think you can really call Xtianity a "white" religion.

There are lots of "white" churches, but that is a bit different.
There's too much of your post to address without going too far on off-topic tangents, so I'll ignore some of it's points without conceding them in the spirit of staying on topic.

Christianity appears to be a merger of Judaism and Roman Pantheism instigated not by ethnic Jews, whatever color they were, but by the (white) Roman Empire. It's been very effective at spreading the empire's influence to far flung places like The Phillippines, South America, and Ireland.

I personally prefer to look at religion with color blind eyes, but decided for a moment to look at Christianity through SJW's color-obsessed eyes to see how it looked to me. I don't see them exercising a coherent, consistent philosophy, but rather a mish-mash of miscellaneous outrages.

Someone bring me up to date -- is Christianity, as practiced by indigenous Latin America, Fillipinos, Black Baptists and Pentecostals, and Black Africans, considered by SJWs to be untouchable "brown people" religions?
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 03:13 PM   #212
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,070
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
...
Christianity appears to be a merger of Judaism and Roman Pantheism instigated not by ethnic Jews, whatever color they were, but by the (white) Roman Empire. It's been very effective at spreading the empire's influence to far flung places like The Phillippines, South America, and Ireland.

...
I'm not sure about the rest, but the 4th century Byzantines might not have been as white as you think.

Also, I think you'll find that the Roman Empire ceased to exist as a Political entity some time ago...
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 03:31 PM   #213
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,519
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Thinking about this, there does seem to be a significant issue - the use of white as a default. Assuming an unknown person is white (or straight, male, etc...) is, indeed, problematic and is part of the erasure of minorities from culture we see in a lot of areas.
.
Nope, sorry but just no. The idea that we can assume random person X is white is an axample of the erasure of minorities may, or may not have validity but it is of absolutely no relevance here. In this specific instance, the problem isn't that they removed minorities from the equation (which would be racist) but that they assumed the bullies were racist white kids.

The racist is assuming that there was racist intent behind the bullying, and that therefore the kids involved were white.




(By the way, kudos on the thing I brought up that you responded to earlier)
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 08:36 PM   #214
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
I get that asserting someone who said or did something bad is a certain race without evidence is prejudiced. I agree. I'm confused, however, because I think you are talking about a chain of reasoning where the unjustifiably assumed race informs the opinion about the action. (" imagining their motives based on nothing but that skin color".)

What I think you're missing is that it's the nature of the bullying that's racist, regardless of the perpetrators. The stigmatization of natural black hair has a long history, and insults towards natural black hair can be racist even it comes from another black women. See Hair as Race: Why “Good Hair” May Be Bad for Black Females and the response to Sheryl Underwood.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 08:36 PM   #215
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,822
Put aside the entire question of racism/bigotry/whatever - the A+ thread in question is yet another clear demonstration that critical thinking is simply not part of their collective toolkit. Assumptions are bad enough, but twisting the story into a supposed data point supporting a pet theory that whitecismalewhatever=THE DEVIL and running with it with Indignation Throttles set to WFO without bothering to spend 15 seconds to see if that was actually, ya know, 'true', only shows that these people aren't interesting in any cause but fueling their personal Outrage Machines.

At this point they're not even fit to serve as an example of good intentions gone bad. They're best used as a 'point at and laugh' target for those of us who are still jonesing for the glory days of alt.usenet.kooks.

I mean, the hell - stigmatisim of black hair? That has sod-all to do with the fact that yet again the Plussers are willing to bend/break/ignore actual reality to stroke their narrative even in cases where it simply doesn't apply, period end. If that doesn't cause people to just walk away from them then what will?

Last edited by Joe Random; 2nd December 2013 at 08:40 PM.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2013, 09:05 PM   #216
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
FCA's response.


Follow up story.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 01:42 AM   #217
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
The stigmatization of natural black hair has a long history, and insults towards natural black hair can be racist even it comes from another black women.
The key words there are "can be", as opposed to "necessarily is".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 02:08 AM   #218
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,681
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I get that asserting someone who said or did something bad is a certain race without evidence is prejudiced. I agree. I'm confused, however, because I think you are talking about a chain of reasoning where the unjustifiably assumed race informs the opinion about the action. (" imagining their motives based on nothing but that skin color".)

What I think you're missing is that it's the nature of the bullying that's racist, regardless of the perpetrators. The stigmatization of natural black hair has a long history, and insults towards natural black hair can be racist even it comes from another black women. See Hair as Race: Why “Good Hair” May Be Bad for Black Females and the response to Sheryl Underwood.
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The key words there are "can be", as opposed to "necessarily is".
Actually, I'm not sure it "can be". At least, not under the definition of racism qwints claims to be using, that is, as I understand it.*



*I'm open to the possibility that my understanding of "the silly definition" of racism is imperfect.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 04:17 AM   #219
Jono
Master Poster
 
Jono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,015
Awww

__________________
"I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard
Jono is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 05:27 AM   #220
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Looking it up, it seems that the etymology of "bad" isn't known, but that baeddel is thought of as a possible source. It also means "pedarist".

If it is that case that that's the origin, then that would be a parallel evolution to the modern use of the word "gay" to mean "bad", which would be interesting.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 11:39 AM   #221
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
Ouch. Maybe not her classmates, but if we started the thread with uncertainty about whether anti-black racism was still a factor in the US, the comments section on that news site is pretty good evidence that such racism is indeed alive and well.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2013, 06:06 PM   #222
Meed
boundless constraint
 
Meed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
There's too much of your post to address without going too far on off-topic tangents, so I'll ignore some of it's points without conceding them in the spirit of staying on topic.

Christianity appears to be a merger of Judaism and Roman Pantheism instigated not by ethnic Jews, whatever color they were, but by the (white) Roman Empire. It's been very effective at spreading the empire's influence to far flung places like The Phillippines, South America, and Ireland.

I personally prefer to look at religion with color blind eyes, but decided for a moment to look at Christianity through SJW's color-obsessed eyes to see how it looked to me. I don't see them exercising a coherent, consistent philosophy, but rather a mish-mash of miscellaneous outrages.

Someone bring me up to date -- is Christianity, as practiced by indigenous Latin America, Fillipinos, Black Baptists and Pentecostals, and Black Africans, considered by SJWs to be untouchable "brown people" religions?
I think the argument would be that Christianity was brought to a lot of these places by Europeans during the times of European exploration/trade/colonization.

Also it would be accurate to say that anti-Muslim sentiment, while not necessarily racism, is often associated with or tied up with racism or if not racism then prejudice toward foreign peoples (which some might label as "xenophobia").

I'm perfectly fine with bashing Islam personally though, and certainly wouldn't call someone a racist for doing so just because some people who don't like Muslims are racists.
Meed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 12:18 AM   #223
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,354
And in another thread, we have a similar behavior being exhibited.

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5702

Legitimate topic. Should be of concern. Certainly merits attention and discussion. Similar measures were proposed by skinflints in the UK a while back to similarly legitimate uproar.

Alas, you get a few outraged posts (one of which typically says "I don't know about the topic, but golly I'm against this"), and then you get Ischemgeek doing zub's Ceepolk impression yet again.... No where in ANY of the hundreds of articles on this nor in any of the comments I've read, has anyone put this off to "Well, d2 sufferers are fat slobs and probably don't deserve our skinny money".

This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation. Why make it into some picayune hobby horse? I think the old adage is true: If the only tool in your box is a hammer, pretty soon the whole world begins to look like a nail.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:18 AM   #224
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by cornsail View Post
I think the argument would be that Christianity was brought to a lot of these places by Europeans during the times of European exploration/trade/colonization.
So, if White Europeans infected them with Christianity, I'd consider it appropriate for White Europeans to "address" killing the Frankenstein Monster they created, regardless of the melanin levels of the victims infected. Not sure what the SJWs feel about that but recall they issued a hands-off decree against addressing Black Christian sects.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:53 AM   #225
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,070
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
So, if White Europeans infected them with Christianity, I'd consider it appropriate for White Europeans to "address" killing the Frankenstein Monster they created, regardless of the melanin levels of the victims infected. Not sure what the SJWs feel about that but recall they issued a hands-off decree against addressing Black Christian sects.
But, going by your sig; She doesn't specifically say Muslim.

If a Brown Person is Christian, do we still have to keep our hands off their religion?
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:46 AM   #226
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,660
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5702

Alas, you get a few outraged posts (one of which typically says "I don't know about the topic, but golly I'm against this"), and then you get Ischemgeek doing zub's Ceepolk impression yet again.... No where in ANY of the hundreds of articles on this nor in any of the comments I've read, has anyone put this off to "Well, d2 sufferers are fat slobs and probably don't deserve our skinny money".

This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation.
First, I couldn't find either of those quotes in the link you provided. Isn't it the general rule to only place something inside quotation marks when actually quoting someone?

Something like: Foolmewunz says "This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation."

Instead of, Foolmewunz is "outraged at the lack of investigation by the A+ crowd."

Second, while I would agree that the topic likely deserves investigation, I'm not so sure it deserves outrage.

Is testing more than once a week necessary for those with Type 2 diabetes? Does research show that testing daily or three times a week produces significant positive results? What are the risk factors for Type 2 diabetes? Would regular exercise and reducing weight be more effective than using test strips to reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes? Is the petition a reasoned/rational approach, or an emotional one?

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:39 AM   #227
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,354
Originally Posted by RayG View Post
First, I couldn't find either of those quotes in the link you provided. Isn't it the general rule to only place something inside quotation marks when actually quoting someone?

Something like: Foolmewunz says "This is a topic that likely deserves outrage and investigation."

Instead of, Foolmewunz is "outraged at the lack of investigation by the A+ crowd."

Second, while I would agree that the topic likely deserves investigation, I'm not so sure it deserves outrage.

Is testing more than once a week necessary for those with Type 2 diabetes? Does research show that testing daily or three times a week produces significant positive results? What are the risk factors for Type 2 diabetes? Would regular exercise and reducing weight be more effective than using test strips to reduce the risk of Type 2 diabetes? Is the petition a reasoned/rational approach, or an emotional one?

RayG
Yeah, sorry about that first part. I thought of putting "I paraphrase" in parentheses but didn't go back to do so. I have a bad habit of wanting to write thoughts as imaginary dialogue and putting them in quotes. I'll usually wrap actual quote tags around anything that's a real quote.

As to the effectiveness of the strips... they're a tool for measuring blood glucose. If their doctors recommend exercise and diet and nutritional changes, they still need to see if those changes are aiding, but they're not going to wean them from their meds immediately and say, "Just run around the block and eat some rice cakes and you'll be fine. Don't worry about those dizzy spells or if you pass out." (That's another imaginary quote. No real doctors were harmed in the making of this post.) They will still need the Type 2 patient to be self-monitoring.

It's not a "treatment". It's a method of monitoring whether the treatments are working. Patients adjust their meds based on the readings they get. At a cost of about USD 0.75 a day for a strip (d2 patients test once a day) they're being penny wise and pound foolish. If the patient misjudges or decides to tough-it-out with minor symptoms, or say the d2 patient has a cold or flu and thinks they're feeling like crap from the bug rather than their blood sugar... the costs from complications are ten thousand fold higher than the costs of the test strips.

((Disclaimer: IANAD. I lost my sister to diabetes and my father-in-law. My mother suffered from 2d for years and tested herself daily. Beyond a certain range of change, she was told to NOT just adjust her dosage, but to get her ass to the hospital. It's deemed that significant.))
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 07:11 AM   #228
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
But, going by your sig; She doesn't specifically say Muslim.

If a Brown Person is Christian, do we still have to keep our hands off their religion?
Google to the rescue!

Originally Posted by qmartindale
Are you saying atheists should not be working to "tear down" Islam or Hinduism?
Originally Posted by ceepolk
i agree. thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end
So, Boss Ceepolk was referring to Islam and Hinduism, but I've seen atheist SJWs declare Black Christian congregations to also be untouchable. She didn't use the plural "religions" but it looks like she was in too much of a hurry to shut down criticism of brown religions to proof her post. The color of the people practicing the religion was apparently, to her, the most important factor.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 4th December 2013 at 07:29 AM. Reason: Better wording
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 12:05 PM   #229
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 12:26 PM   #230
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.
It complicates things a lot, unfortunately.

The correlation between ethnicity and religion can make targetting a particular religion de facto targetting people's ethnicicty. If nothing else, it's bad optics and therefore a questionable tactic. The FFRF's objetion to a star of david on a holocaust memorial is a recent example.

An older example that precipitated my distance from CFI Vancouver was their lack of social filter with regard to Blasphemy Day. Some of the cartoons they drew were not making a good distinction between blasphemy versus non-PC. eg: drawing Jewish Bankers with star of david medallions and money bags, or drawing Arabs with bombs. Their fallback excuse was that Blasphemy Day was more about the right to free speech, even if it's offensive. My thought is that it was inventing an excuse for bigoted speech, and more or less disgraceful behavior.

I can see how a person from an ethnic group targetted by CFI's campaign who also thought he was a skeptic would at least try to look for a segment within skepticism that was sympathetic before rejecting skepticism altogether. I think A+ intended to attract that demographic, but ended up losing control of their informal org to a few individuals with personality disorders.



I think there's a middle ground of reasonableness that is not being navigated because skeptical activists have become somewhat polarized. Either you can't criticize blatant bigotry because it's unskeptical to question free speech, or you have to have your thoughts vetted before membership is approved and only publish on message.


People like myself who understand that sometimes criticizing an ethnicity is unethical or downright stupid, while also believing that there is value in criticizing some ethnicities, picking our battles, don't really have anywhere to go within skepticism.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:11 PM   #231
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,354
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.
There are, no doubt, arguments against certain religions that have racial overtones. Much of the anti-Islam fervor is based on that, IMHO.

But to put that out there as the default position, as Ceepolk did and as a lot of you accept as "not completely unreasonable" is what complicates things. My default position is that the person I'm discussing things with is actually criticizing the religious beliefs and I don't insist (as I believe Ceepolk once proposed) that we cannot criticize Islam or Buddhism or Taoism or Totemism without simultaneously saying some bad stuff about Christianity and Judaism. This is just plain silly. On a board devoted to Atheism, the assumption should be that the poster is against religion and religious beliefs and just happens to want to discuss Buddhism in that particular post or discussion.

It's another case of having an agenda that serves to stifle discussion for no reason other than to promote the dogma.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2013, 05:11 PM   #232
Amadanb
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I didn't and don't agree with ceepolk's stance, but I do think it's valid to criticize some attacks on different religions as being harmful. Some criticism of religions do tend have racial implications. And the tendency of religion to be used as a cultural identifier also complicates things.

You might not have agreed with ceepolk, but you sure didn't argue with her, did you?

I did, and it was patently obvious that she was trying to find some pretext to ban me from then on.

Her and that creepy guy who apparently joined A+ to convince us that the most pressing SJ issue for atheists should be defending Muslims did much to erode my sympathy.
Amadanb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2013, 09:58 PM   #233
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 03:49 AM   #234
s_pepys
Muse
 
s_pepys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 761
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.
I've read that thread and I don't see you disagreeing with ceepolk at all. Care to link to that discussion.
s_pepys is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 04:37 AM   #235
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.
This is the thread in question. I don't see a post from you in there at all.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 06:20 AM   #236
Humes fork
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
Another gem. I didn't know non-Christian belief systems had intrinsic value.
Humes fork is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 06:55 AM   #237
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Humes fork View Post
Another gem. I didn't know non-Christian belief systems had intrinsic value.
I don't see what you're making reference to in that post, but I do like this;

Quote:
If atheist groups within those cultures and communities offer to build allegiances with us, then we should support them however they ask.
Bearing in mind that "those cultures and communities" are, in the same post, defined as "non-Christian believers" we run into a nice little paradox. We should only comment on Hinduism or Islam if Hindus or Muslim atheists ask for help. But isn't "Muslim atheist" a contradiction in terms?

And, for a post which is nominally anti-racism, it does rather seem to fall into the same trap as ceepolk in saying that Islam is a foreign religion - implying that there are no white Muslims, no non-immigrant Muslims in the West. It may be true that the majority are non-white (this source suggests that 11% of Muslims in the UK are white), but the lack of precision ends up mirroring the "us and them" rhetoric of exactly the kinds of bigots the post is supposed to be railing against.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 08:11 AM   #238
Amadanb
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by qwints View Post
I disagreed with ceepolk in that thread. In fact, they initially disagreed with me.

Were you banned? I don't remember that, I just thought you stopped posting.
No, I have not been banned. I just post very infrequently, because I have concluded that there are too many issues that I disagree with them on, and even with ceepolk gone, trying to disagree with anyone on A+ requires a very delicate dance of phrasing your words just so (especially if you are disagreeing with someone who is triggered by life, which seems to be about half of them). Usually I don't have the time or patience.
Amadanb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 09:14 AM   #239
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
This is the thread in question. I don't see a post from you in there at all.
I'm qmartindale over there, which I've said here before. But that was a while back.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2013, 09:25 AM   #240
qwints
Muse
 
qwints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
But isn't "Muslim atheist" a contradiction in terms?
Hitchens talked about being a "protestant atheist", and there are several explicitly ex-muslim organizations, such as Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and ExMuslim Blogs. Many atheists, like myself, left a particular faith.
__________________
“If you can get religion out,” Bill O’Reilly warned, “then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage.”
qwints is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.