Freedomain Radio

Being a recovering Ron Paul-aholic myself I'm well aware of the insane frothing-at-the-mouth anger they'll unleash on rationalists. They're more threatened by secular humanism and anarcho-capitalism than they are by pro-state communism.

Chaohinon:

They're more threatened by secular humanism and anarcho-capitalism than they are by pro-state communism.

That's really fascinating. Why do you think that is? In my early, early "rabid" days as a libertarian, I was vehemently anti-communist, in the Reagan/Goldwater tradition. What do you suppose has changed?

GregG:

Chaohinon:

They're more threatened by secular humanism and anarcho-capitalism than they are by pro-state communism.

That's really fascinating. Why do you think that is? In my early, early "rabid" days as a libertarian, I was vehemently anti-communist, in the Reagan/Goldwater tradition. What do you suppose has changed?

The further influence of religious nutters.

while i don't think calling a characterization "low sophistry" is remotely abusive, i would say that the term "nutters" and "bastards" do qualify as verbally abusive.

i find it ironic how verbal abuse directed towards members of this forum, and stef in particular, isn't allowed, but blunt verbal abuse towards dissenters is essentially encouraged.

 Religion is insanity. Its not an insult. They aren't dissenters to the forum, they are dissenters to truth.

burning dragon:

while i don't think calling a characterization "low sophistry" is remotely "verbal abuse", i would say that the term "religious nutters" does qualify. i find it ironic how verbal abuse directed towards members of this forum isn't allowed, but blunt verbal abuse towards dissenters is essentially encouraged.

By what standard/definiton is the term "religious nutters" abusive?

first, i slightly edited my original post immediately following it's posting. full disclosure and all.

how is calling someone a "nutter" or "bastard" any less abusive than calling someone "anti-family" or "cult-leader"? the standard i'm using is the one applied by stef to the statements he refused to be allowed posted on his site.

if someone called stef a bastard or insane, would he allow them to continue to post here?

Phil Crimmins:

 Religion is insanity. Its not an insult. They aren't dissenters to the forum, they are dissenters to truth.

disagreement with someone's version of the truth does not qualify them as insane. it might make them wrong if that version of the truth holds up, but not insane.

GregG:

Chaohinon:

They're more threatened by secular humanism and anarcho-capitalism than they are by pro-state communism.

That's really fascinating. Why do you think that is? In my early, early "rabid" days as a libertarian, I was vehemently anti-communist, in the Reagan/Goldwater tradition. What do you suppose has changed?

burning dragon:

first, i slightly edited my original post immediately following it's posting. full disclosure and all.

how is calling someone a "nutter" or "bastard" any less abusive than calling someone "anti-family" or "cult-leader"? the standard i'm using is the one applied by stef to the statements he refused to be allowed posted on his site.

if someone called stef a bastard or insane, would he allow them to continue to post here?

Well, statists advocate the initiation of the use of violence against us, and religious fundamentalists worship a God that says we should be put to death, so I think it's hard to focus on Nate's post as the only abusive part of any interaction, but I agree that it is too harsh without context, I will edit it.

Flaming conservatives? I always knew all the homophobia was just a mask...

i don't really think that editing nate's post really addresses the fundamental issue at hand here. you say you are opposed to verbal abuse and do not allow it, but when it comes from the keyboard of one of your most prominent members here, your reaction is to sweep it under the table by editing the post instead of publicly condemning their blatant verbal abuse. 

"the principle of a proposition must include the proposition" is kind of a famous statement you have made in the past. i think that there is a direct parallel between these kinds of insults. if it is unacceptable to call you a bastard or insane, it is unacceptable to call anyone a bastard or insane. regardless of their supposed ideology.

Goose-stepping flag-wavers are in no position to referring to others as cultists.

You are completely missing the point.

If I go around advocating the initiation of violence against someone, or calling upon my followers to kill him, he is perfectly within his rights to call me a "bastard" or "insane."

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time focusing on the aggressive statements of statists and religionists rather than nitpicking here.

Religion is insane, god is a delusion, thus religious people are crazy. This isn't abuse, it's calling it like it is.  Is pointing at a rapist and calling him an evil, violent bastard abusive?

Religion is child abuse, religious people abuse children, I was a child of religious people and have every right to call them and anyone who believes that which contradicts reality not to mention advocating my death - nutters.

This whole thread is enraging.