BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:04 PM

If I've said it once I've said it a dozen times, Joe. I do not take offence at what happens here. Ever. I wouldn't come here otherwise. I raise this comment repeatedly because it was a bloody stupid thing for you to say. You were rattled. I take delight in rattling people who seek to, and fail, to rattle me. That's the way I am. All you have to do is to admit that you were a complete twat for saying that I needed a shrink. I'd never mention it again. But, until you do, I'll berate you every single time you aspire to that moral high ground. Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:24 PM

Musket says (03 Apr 14 - 10:30 AM): Joe says he was questioned by the fundamentalists but respects them. He then singles out those who don't share a faith and says not so nice things about us.

Well, Musket, it's like this: I object to the attack dogs, whatever their creed (or lack of creed) may be.

No, I don't respect the fundamentalists who damn me to hell or report me to the bishop, or the ones who quietly (and successfully) pressured the pastor to fire me from my job as a religion teacher (and don't get me started on my opinion of that cowardly pastor who actually has a lot of good qualities). And yes, I freely acknowledge the existence all those who have done wrong in the name of religion. I've known some of those bastards, and I have no respect or affection for them - and certainly no desire to defend them. But I've also known many, many good people of faith to balance against the bad. As for atheists, most of the atheists I have known have been people who treat me respectfully and seriously, without condescendingly thinking I'm some sort of idiot for having religious faith. A condescending (or worse) attitude is a difficult foundation for meaningful discussion.

You, Musket, have ended up in the "attack dog" category. You're not even condescending. You have constantly twisted my words, and falsely and insidiously accused me of twisting yours when I have been very careful to quote you accurately.

So, it's not ideology I oppose - it's aggression. I gather that you do not understand that. Pete and Akenaton express ideas that you oppose, and my thinking on those subjects is very much in line with yours - but they are not aggressive or demeaning in expressing their ideas. They say what they believe, what's in their hearts, and it's hard for me to find fault in that although I disagree with them. And although I agree with your thinking to a great extent, I think that you destroy people and what they hold sacred in the process of opposing them, and I think that's wrong.

Maybe, for balance, I should reply to this statement from Pete:

though having a firm faith in the bible and obviously not taking your position that nothing can be known for sure about the subject

Pete, with all respect, I think that many, many things can be known from the Bible, which I also hold as a sacred book. The Hebrew people and the early Christians held these writings as sacred for good reason. They are their statement of their faith in the goodness and faithfulness of God, despite the fact that even people of faith turned away from God. The Bible is the story of people in relationship with God, a relationship that was often very difficult and unreliable. It is a story of people who professed all the ideals of faith and still did horrible things (and some good things, too). Musket and others point out all the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and they are right to do so. Most of those allegations are true. And as I've said, the "creationist" movement is an effort to impose a comprehensive right-wing agenda on the rest of us, not just thinking on the origins of our universe - I don't see you as going that far, Pete, but it's something you should think about.
And Pete, I think you should reconsider your views of the stories of Genesis and the Book of Jonah. These are stories that are meant to teach important lessons, but they are stories. If they are viewed as such and studied for the sake of the lessons they teach, they have far greater value than they would have if they are viewed as stories in conflict with what is known by science.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:34 PM

Hello, Steve. It's so nice to hear from you. I'm sorry you're in such a funk. You really should explore the idea of whether you need a shrink or not. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, and it might help you learn to deal with disagreement in a rational and peaceable manner.
And if the shrink doesn't work, try drugs.
Bless you, Steve, in your endeavors.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:41 PM

I don't give a shit about what evil has purportedly been done "in the name of religion". You'll never hear me using that argument, basically because it's an argument that has been misused so often as to bring it into disrepute. You will also never hear me say that you are not entitled to your beliefs. As I've said here a dozen or more times, your private beliefs are your private business. Do note my use of "private", though, so that I don't have to rattle on yet again about how I can respect them only if you keep them to yourself. Unfortunately for most Christians (including you), and for people of other major denominations, that appears to be far too much to ask. You have a God for yourself for whom you have no evidence, yet you are happy to allow your children to be taught that he embodies deep truths. You are probably a very nice fellow, but that, to me, is utterly unacceptable. And hey, I don't need a shrink, honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:47 PM

Hello, Steve. It's so nice to hear from you. I'm sorry you're in such a funk. You really should explore the idea of whether you need a shrink or not. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, and it might help you learn to deal with disagreement in a rational and peaceable manner.
And if the shrink doesn't work, try drugs.
Bless you, Steve, in your endeavors.

Cross-post.

Jaysus, I should be so happy that you posted that, Joe, in that you let yourself down so badly. But it makes me feel rather sad, actually. Nighty night.

(Incidentally, do note my coolness at all times. I know how irritating it might seem. I don't even know what "funk" is. Maybe I'll try it sometime. Have another vat of wine, Joe.)

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 08:53 PM

Canadian Whisky is my preference, Steve....but you know, that shrink might really do you a lot of good. Or if we'd have a glass or two together, that might be better.

Oh, could I ask about this statement? I can respect them [Joe's beliefs] only if you keep them to yourself.

I guess that means I have no right to say anything about anything, huh? And if I refrain from expressing my opinion, you will refrain from denigrating me? How very generous of you, Steve!

Maybe you'd better see that shrink....

love and yummies,

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 09:09 PM

...And God looked down on the burgeoning cesspool that was once a beautiful planet before human 'evolution' shat mightily over all its dominion and Said, "Verily, verily I say unto you, I'm through trying to help you guys out with a Buddha or a Mohammed or a Jesus, because y'all could fuck up a free lunch." --What I REALLY Think (Revised Ed.), God, Revelatory Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 14 - 11:29 PM

Dear Guest of 03 Apr 14 - 09:09 PM

For no particular reason I refute your post. Have a nice day.

I had hoped this thread would be peaceful. Looks like I was wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:53 AM

If Messrs. Blandiver and Musket and Shaw think I have insulted them by criticizing their endless attacks, so be it. I don't wish to insult anyone, but I don't think it's right to attack nonaggressive people for what they hold sacred.

Thanks for the name-check there, Joe. Did you see my post of 31 Mar 14 - 06:33 AM in the Creationism thread? Likewise 01 Apr 14 - 07:59 AM? Which was not an April Fool joke - I happen to take such Forteana very seriously as an aspect of human folklore & fake-believe. However, these thread closures are making a nonsense of sensible discourse!

Anyhoo, once more for the record...

I'm not attacking anyone, just calling into question belief systems and their subsequent cultures. If people hold these things sacred, that's their beeswax, not mine; likewise if they choose to take offense at what I say about them, that is their right and entitlement. I do not set out to cause offense, much less do I take any - not seriously at any rate for as Stan Laurel said, life's not short enough.

Anyway, little point in any of this because no doubt this thread will be gone before much longer. I'm not even bothering to read it much less get involved, just someone said you'd mentioned my name in a post.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:15 AM

Look:

1. Creationists and religious fundamentalists (and the tea-potty) are harmful in everything they say, do, think, and teach. The basis of their "thought" process is that ignorance is better than knowledge. They will do as much harm (maybe more) in their "private" lives (like, for example, MLC denying her children a proper education) as in their public utterances and their destruction of knowledge an learning. How should I respect them, any more than a person who in private dons KKK robes?

2. I do however admit to one fundamentalist view. Whisky comes from Scotland. Any other spiritous liquor is not "Whisky" - although if it comes from Ireland it may be "Whiskey" which can be just as nice although different. Things from the American continent with rye in are NOT whisky.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM

Hi, Jack-

Generally, I think you've been quite fair and balanced in these threads. I have no quarrel with you.
Cheers!

--Joe-

P.S. I spelled is "whisky" intentionally, to provoke discussion. And now I've switched to bourbon, which can be spelled only the French way.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM

Things from the American continent with rye in are NOT whisky.

What about Norfolk? Or even Wales?

Personally, I prefer a Jim Beam any day! Though an old housemate did turn me on to the delights of Talisker and freshly squeezed orange juice... Heretical in most eyes, but a fine thing of a warm summer evening.

*

Mudcat would be great if we could keep the personal & the personalities out of it.

Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:48 AM

You can disrespect religion, but, please have the decency to respect my drink.


whiskey-whisky 

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:06 AM

Thanks for the long post Joe. I don't need to see a shrink it seems, you have done their job for them.

You were doing alright till you said Akenaton hasn't said anything demeaning. After that particular nugget, you can't blame me for wondering if you understand other peoples' posts sometimes...

You see, all it can lead to is me noting that homophobia isn't an issue to the catholic faith, so why am I not surprised? Of course I know in reality you can be as offended by bigotry as anyone, and you did says your views were in line with mine, but still.. If you can analyse my comments to the word, don't be surprised if I have issues with your stance regarding bigots.

On the more fundamental level, it should be plain to see that if you have faith, you believe in at least something metaphysical, even if it is just that chance and probability isn't the driving force. (So much for religious take on quantum mechanics then...). If someone like me doesn't need such a crutch to get them through the day, then yes, I do ultimately have no problem with your words concerning idiots and faith.

All the effort and determination over the years in perpetuating medieval superstition, leading to wars, bigotry and ill conceived government policy? Idiot might be too kind. If that effort had gone into curing ills rather than causing them, society wouldn't have need for fucking with peoples' minds, they'd be too busy trying to make the world a better place without the baggage that hampers them.

I'm all for planting out a nice garden. Be buggered though to building a house for the fairies at the bottom of it.



None of that, not a single word of it is condescending nor dismissive of faith. Just when faith gets organised and tries to interfere where it can do more harm than good.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:28 AM

the joy and diversity of drink:) 

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 09:45 AM

Oh, could I ask about this statement? "I can respect them [Joe's beliefs] only if you keep them to yourself."

I guess that means I have no right to say anything about anything, huh? And if I refrain from expressing my opinion, you will refrain from denigrating me? How very generous of you, Steve!

Of course you may ask! here's what I said, er, yesterday, was it?

As for your or anyone else's religious beliefs, I've said time and time again that I can respect them, as long as they are held privately and not used in any way to influence others to follow them. Explain your beliefs, great (very necessary, too), but that business of influencing others to follow the same beliefs is simply immoral.

That's what I mean by keeping them to yourself. Maybe keeping them for yourself would have been better. You know full well that I'm not for keeping religion underground. In fact, the more public it is the more idiotic it will appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 11:05 AM

"From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who had millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And, on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation had an Eve, an apple, a serpent, and a redeemer?"

Thomas Payne, Age of Reason.

The God of the creationists and literalists is a parochial deity, confined to this cosmic backwater in order to give cold comfort to his creations, which if they avert their eyes from the heavens and refuse to question what they see, feel small and lost and in need a shepherd to guide their solipsistic wanderings in the darkness.

We are the universe made conscious, contemplating itself and inquiring into it's own nature. By expressing admiration for those who descry others who would investigate these mysteries then one aligns oneself with them, not with those whose system of enquiry is the scientific method.

Here's the fundamental flaw of religion; to be religious one must assume everyone who doesn't adhere to one's own creed is totally wrong, because they deny the existence of the most fundamental aspect of ones faith: God.*

There is an arrogance to that point of view, a lack of humility that despite the best intentions of any religious disciple is the idea that the rest of us are WRONG.

As for science, I've tried to explain in my own clumsy way, but once more Carl Sagan can articulate it more than some gobshite like myself ever could:

"In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind."

Religion doesn't have the monopoly on spirituality, it just thinks it does.

* Or other chosen deity, as applicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 12:04 PM

I suppose when those with faith use the term arrogance to describe my assertion that needing to believe fantasy is a measure of overall intelligence, my thoughts are not too far away from what Stu is saying.

It is far more arrogant to pray. An assumption that a sentient being responsible for the supernova at the end of a telescope should answer your parochial prayer whilst checking out the funeral of a child or watching an elderly lady get abused by her "carers" is beyond me. Let alone allowing a type of worm live in the eye of an African child that blinds him.

I guess the only time I can meet superstition half way is to say IF there is a sentient designer, it is indifferent to humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:18 PM

"It is far more arrogant to pray"

I dunno, I think it can have benefits: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-find-one-source-of-prayers-

Religion also offers genuine social cohesion; real communities with individuals working for the common good and being rewarded by being part of a group. Us primates are very social animals, and secular society tends not to offer people the same benefits of community in this day and age as we don't come together under the banner of a single cause. It's why many politicians are failures; Thatcher wasn't bright enough to realise it mattered although she understood all to well that destroying communities destroys collective will. This disunity has allowed capitalism to ruin rampant and (here in the UK) made the return to Victorian working practices very likely.

There's a lesson religion can teach is all right there.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 01:49 PM

If you pray for your sick relative to get better, you're asking God to make overcrowding on this planet even worse. If you pray for your team to win, you're also praying that the other team will lose. If you give thanks to God for providing you with a bountiful harvest, don't forget to also give him a bloody good bollocking for failing to do so for billions of malnourished people the world over. These things are possibly best kept to oneself.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 04:46 PM

"It is useful to converse with someone with strong belief who is also willing to listen. It gives me some hope for humanity."

You've backed the wrong horse if you think Pete listens. He hears what you say, but he is emphatically NOT listening.

"And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they'd made,
People talking without speaking, people hearing without listening,

And the sign said
"The words of the prophet are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls,
Whisper the sound of silence".......Simon & Garfunkel

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 05:55 PM

"Mudcat would be great if we could keep the personal & the personalities out of it"

Errr?   nice sentiments Jack, but what about your vicious abusive posts which had to be deleted by admin?

I suppose it would take forever to delete ALL the cursing and personal abuse, from just one member with several guest personas, but they do their best.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 14 - 06:02 PM

Poor, poor pitiful Pharoah.....

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 12:14 AM

Of course, Musket, your contention that prayer is arrogant, depends on whether the rest of us accept your definition of prayer, and your definitions of God, faith, religion, and the rest of it. And what you define is not according to the thinking of intelligent religious people.

A classic case of argumentum ad absurdum.

I don't ask God for anything in prayer. I seek God in prayer. If nothing else, the silence does me a lot of good - but I think it does a lot more.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM

Funnily enough, a post of mine didn't get there earlier where I defend the idea of prayer from a personal perception. (If it gives you peace of mind then great, it does it for you.)

The point exists though Joe that many churches encourage people to pray for personal gain and solutions to temporal issues. That the same sentient being who allows hate to exist might give you divine guidance with your lottery tickets is rather baffling.

Your own logical take makes sense but as ever, as I don't reflect every non Christian, I doubt organised religions wish all adherents to reflect Joe Offer , as you have found out yourself...

Following on from Akenaton's post above. If all his bigoted offensive pronouncements were deleted from the database, the website would load quicker.



And cleaner.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 02:57 AM

Well, joe, Jesus appears to have believed in Jonah and genesis so that's good enough for me. And you are quite right about me and politics......a tea party for an Englishman is a pleasant social event....hopefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 03:18 AM

Yes but Jesus, if he existed as a person would have believed in it. But he didn't have the access to our knowledge. There was nothing to contradict biblical pronouncements. In fact the old men trying to control you were also holding the answers to what became science.

We believed what we believed at the time. I went to look at the Mappa Mundi a couple of years ago. At the time it was drawn, people believed the mythical creatures denoted on the map actually existed.

Knowledge comes from your time. To wallow in less informed times and their understanding just proves my point concerning intelligence. That both fundamentalists and boutique Christians seem to find offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:52 AM

Errr?   nice sentiments Jack, but what about your vicious abusive posts which had to be deleted by admin?

Posts plural, Ake? I can only think of the one - which was directed at my flaming namesake which is fair game because he started a whole thread about me. And there was nothing vicious about it I can assure you. All I did was call him Jack the Tw*t in goodly humour - unlike you, Ake - saying I was mentally ill & on drugs in your Xmas day post that DIDN'T get deleted by admin.

Oh for some level of consistency around here!

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:28 AM

Pete, there's no doubt that Jesus believed in Jonah and Genesis, but I wonder WHAT he believed about them. I think that this "creationism" and literalism in biblical interpretation is relatively new, a near-desperate attempt to prove the factuality of the Bible - I don't think Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries had the same slavish adherence to the literal word of Scripture that modern fundamentalists have. From all I'm read about literature at the time of Jesus, it's clear to me that things were written to convey ideas and impressions and thinking, not cold facts. I believe that the fundamentalism of the last two centuries has distorted the original meaning of the Scriptures, taking them as far more (and far less) than what the writers intended them to be.

Musket says (05 Apr 14 - 02:33 AM)

The point exists though Joe that many churches encourage people to pray for personal gain and solutions to temporal issues. That the same sentient being who allows hate to exist might give you divine guidance with your lottery tickets is rather baffling.

You're right, Musket. Take a look at the Wikipedia article on Prosperity theology. I find it rather frightening. Rev. Ike was a major proponent of Prosperity Gospel.

And: Your own logical take makes sense but as ever, as I don't reflect every non Christian, I doubt organised religions wish all adherents to reflect Joe Offer, as you have found out yourself...

Right again, Musket. I've suffered quite a bit for my insistence on a rational approach to the endeavors of religion. I've also found a lot of support, especially from the nuns I work with.

So, I'll agree with two of the points in your message, but not with your opinion of Akenaton. I like him. I may not agree with him, but he never expresses his thinking with a tone of hatefulness, and he gives me an opportunity to respond in a rational manner. And I also like Pete. I like you, too....can't be sure about that Steve Shaw guy, but he also has his good points. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Jack Blandiver.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:29 AM

Easy. Akenaton can post inflammatory views that have no place in decent society (known as pikey language in the pubs) and his right to vilify and hate is protected as free speech.

Pointing out the distress that propagation of hate causes can be deleted.

Once we see how the rules work, all is possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:42 AM

Well, now that I no longer do "disciplinary moderation," I tend to speak in favor of moderated moderation. Come to think of it, I've always believed in that, and I became unpopular as a moderator mostly for my refusal to delete stuff. So, now the trend is toward a more activist philosophy of moderation, hoping that will work better.
The philosophy is the same as it was when I was moved to the music editor position - to keep the peace and prevent the meeker people from getting stomped by the more aggressive ones. The tactics may be a bit different, but I hope we still err on the side of freedom of expression, even when such expression is not acceptable to the majority.

I respect your opinion, Musket, but I also think that Akenaton and Pete fit into the "meek" category and deserve protection. You and I may not agree with them, but they are very polite in expressing their disagreeable positions.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:00 AM

but they are very polite in expressing their positions

This is what I just don't get, Joe. Do you really believe that it is OK to be as hateful as you like as long as you are polite with it? Surely not. If, for instance, we got a conversation that went

Person A: "I believe all homosexuals are cads and bounders and should have their personal liberties taken away"

Person B: "You are a twat for saying that."

Who's position would you uphold?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:31 AM

Whose position would I uphold, Dave?
Neither.

But neither would I think that either position should be censored or attacked.

I just can't agree with you, Dave - I don't agree with Pete or Ake on many of their views and especially about homosexuality, but I do not think that either of them has crossed the line into hatefulness. They both express mindsets that were probably the predominant way of thinking not too many years ago, mindsets that are still prevalent in many, many places. To effectively change those mindsets, we must use patience and understanding.

I've campaigned for respect for homosexuals for almost fifty years, and that can sometimes be a lonely position in churches - not so much anymore, thankfully. After all that time, I still believe much more is accomplished by a gentle, patient approach. You can't win respect by an aggressive approach - you have to use persuasion and logic to change minds and hearts. Aggression simply makes the other side dig in and get defensive. What good does that do?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:32 AM

It's nice, Joe, to hear you agree that the position of creationists is ill-informed and irrational.

But the point about the views expressed by pete and Ake (etc) is that the views themselves can not be treated with respect in the modern world. They are based on ignorance and hatred.

Remember the words of the distinguished and respected English statesman, Nye Bevan. "No attempt at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party... So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Hatred has its place, and the same applies to bigots and wilful fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM

All I did was call him Jack the Tw*t in goodly humour.

Goodly humour?

I would not say that you ARE mentally ill and on drugs. But it is understandable that some one would think that you are.

Hah! Goodly humour! My round beige, hairy, stinky arse!

Do everyone a favor and take the stick out of _your_ arse. OK?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:05 AM

"I like you, too....can't be sure about that Steve Shaw guy, but he also has his good points. And I have to admit to a grudging respect for Jack Blandiver."

What a bunch of arse lickers. Embrace mediocrity you ingratiating gits!

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:11 AM

I tend to support the perspective of Steve, if not in a more limited way.

While holding personal views that are harmful to others may be acceptable, promoting them (which is what is clearly the purpose, versus a search for enlightenment) is another matter.

It is the responsibility of those who see and know the difference (and the harm they do) to take these folks on and ensure these harmful views are not reinforced to ferment and grow in society. Holding their hands and encouraging such regressive views tends to reinforce their real motives.

That being said, politeness and logical and respectful discussion can surely be reciprocated with the same, as with the opposite approach.

However, if someone is promoting something that is disrespectful and harmful to others, respect runs short.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:13 AM

You can get Bevan's insightful quote on a T shirt next time you buy from Red Molotov Bridge.

That said, I have what I consider a healthy distrust of any ideological approach to issues that need pragmatic solutions, but I digress.

Joe. I too would be appalled if pete couldn't have his private view of reality or indeed share it amongst like minded adults. The issue is convincing others. The foot soldiers in land grab wars and terrorism think they doing just that. Faith can be a useful tool. I recently quoted Voltaire when he said that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Akenaton also has the right to look down on sections of society. Human nature for means of survival includes being distrustful of those different to yourself.. That said, society should be at a level by now that your inner thoughts stay where they are and aren't used outside of your head. If you describe him as meek, I think I understand where you are coming from, but that still doesn't mean it is ok for Mudcat to be a megaphone for bigotry. Most of the contemporary folk songs we know are about justice, equality and shouting down bigotry, which makes it strange when some people defend Akenaton. Sure,not a single person here agrees with him and he lacks the intelligence to see that, but that doesn't mean he has to be protected like an animal in a zoo.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:13 AM

Some where between Arse licking and piss taking lies the happy British medium.

Or is it median?

Or is it mean?

Well it is kinda mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:23 AM

The ability to take the piss is highly-regarded amongst us proles packed in the lower echelons of the class system Jack, especially in respect to any authority. In fact, we really have little respect for any authority and also consider iconoclasm a virtue regardless of class. It's what makes the aspirational middle-class so funny and sad at the same time.

This is how it has always been and always will be. Big nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:30 AM

I have, over the years, met some people who seemed to be fairly good despite having some vile, bigoted ideas about things. There were people I worked with who told racist jokes. While I'd call them on it now, back then, I just walked away. There was the time in the early 90s some of us from work were setting up training and stopped at one of our member's parents' place. Somewhat heated argument ensued because I was working in public health, and the guy's parents were of the opinion that HIV/AIDS was sent from God to punish the guilty. I eventually just walked away.

I'm betting people on the wrong side of both of these issues eventually saw the light, but I'd also bet it had nothing to do with being yelled at and called names.

That bullying type of behavior usually pushes people into defending their position more furiously. It doesn't inspire to think, or to consider any other point of view.

What some people call "debate" here seems to be aimed at keeping people in their designated positions on their designated sides in order to keep the fighting going on.

If you want something else to happen, you have to know that sometimes smart people have stupid ideas, good people have bad ideas, and unless you force them into a corner and trap them there, people are capable of finding their way to better places.

And don't think that anyone's stupid enough to believe you're 'debating' when you stop talking about issues and focus on the people you're fighting with. THAT is what happens when you get frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:33 AM

It's also fun amongst we bourgeois and bosses don'tcha know?

Here's a tip for those for whom Middle class is an aspiration;

When my lads were young, I taught them to shout "Mint sauce!" at the lambs in the fields.

Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:37 AM

"take the piss is highly-regarded amongst us proles packed in the lower echelons of the class system Jack, especially in respect to any authority"

It is well regarded where I come from too. But there is a time and a place. The time is not always and the place is not where you are a guest and the host politely asks you not to.

I'm not talking about you of course. And I am assuming that no one here mistakes Ake and pete for members of the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:52 AM

I know mate - just haven' a josh.

"Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them."

From the SUV per chance?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM

Yeah Stu, I was joshing too. Just trying to be pithy.

"Nowadays, I am teaching my granddaughter to shout "Rosemary and garlic!" at them."

My wife says that to the Tofu at the WalMart.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Stu
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM



Are you taking the pith?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM

I recall quite a few years ago, where I used to work many nice people were very racist. Infact, mang racist statements, jokes and words were frequently used in the open, and this was accepted bg management. I felf very uncomforatable working in thag environment, though the workers seemed like normally kind and nice church going folks.

One day a co worker told a joke with the "n" word to a crowd of workers at lunch. Frusterated, I stood up and said "you know, that joke would have been funny, if it was not at the expense of others, and the "n" word had not been used. All was quiet, and I walked away. That was the last time I heard that word, or a racist comment openly made in that workplace . I learned not only to speak up in these situations but that it was my responsibility and duty to do so, and to call people out on harmful statements, and that by doing so, that I could make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:07 AM

I'm betting people on the wrong side of both of these issues eventually saw the light...

In heaven's name, why? What makes you think they still aren't the intolerant,ignorant, bigoted fools they were then?

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:32 AM

Ed, What is being "promoted by either Pete or myself that is disrespectful or harmful to others.

Pete discusses his personal faith, I discuss the reasons for, and ways of finding a solution to the epidemic of STDs amongst MSM.
I quote official figures to validate the points I make.

How are either of these two separate positions, harmful or disrespectful to others? Unless of course you believe the subjects "should not be discussed, kept covered up, none of our business, leave them alone, it's nothing to do with heterosexuals, it's hateful, it's bigotry, it contradicts our "equality" agenda, all "liberals" are kind caring and tolerant"

Oh yes!....especially the last one.

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 05 Apr 14 - 10:50 AM

Ake, you put words in my mouth, which is odd, since you have complained about others doing that to you.
I have no idea what Pete's views are, as I have not followed religious threads, that I suspect he participated in. In fact, Steve and I had a "back and forth" discussion quite awhile back when I felt he was being disrespectful to some with a belief in a god (I have such a belief, but mostly keep it to my self).

However, I refer to harmful views toward gay people. As an example, if one refers or alludes to gay people as a perversion, that would seem to qualify as harmful and disrespectful to me. I am not gay, but I have great respect for gays, as with most other diverse groups.