Freedomain Radio

burning dragon:

i would say that the term "nutters" and "bastards" do qualify as verbally abusive.

I agree with you Burning Dragon.  Freedomain people should lead by example.  If verbal abuse is wrong, we should not engage in it. 

The vast majority of religious people are religious because they were raised that way.  Child abuse is difficult to over-come. Verbally abusing religious people instead of inviting them to Reason at every opportunity is akin to mocking an illiterate person for being illiterate.  Perhaps the person never was given the opportunity to learn to read.  Perhaps they were lazy and never bothered.  If we don't know why they can't read, we shouldn't assume laziness and mock them.

Bible: "Atheists, gays and disobedient children should be PUT TO DEATH!"

Atheist: "That's nutty."

ZOMG the atheist is being verbally abusive!

hmmmm....

YouTube's most famous Christian\Creationist.

Good luck appealing to reason.

Tommyj:

burning dragon:

i would say that the term "nutters" and "bastards" do qualify as verbally abusive.

I agree with you Burning Dragon.  Freedomain people should lead by example.  If verbal abuse is wrong, we should not engage in it. 

The vast majority of religious people are religious because they were raised that way.  Child abuse is difficult to over-come. Verbally abusing religious people instead of inviting them to Reason at every opportunity is akin to mocking an illiterate person for being illiterate.  Perhaps the person never was given the opportunity to learn to read.  Perhaps they were lazy and never bothered.  If we don't know why they can't read, we shouldn't assume laziness and mock them.

I agree with Tommyj and Burning Dragon.   Verbal abuse is wrong and just because someone on another site or in a book you don't believe in said something bad is no reason to abuse them here or on another site.

And using that as a defense just seems like two kids on a playground screaming about who called who a name first.  It just don't fit with the image of being the rational ones and isn't that what we're trying to do here?

I've commented on this before (specifically in relations to comments about soldiers) because I find it often detracts from a valid point that is being made.

If it is abuse , then I am proud and happy to be an abuser.

To piggy back off Stef's most recent post:

"I believe that reason and evidence should be applied to all situations. Family relationships are voluntary, and thus rationality applies to that situation just as much as any other"

"He's Looney for saying these things!"

If you don't see the difference between that and the atheist calling the religious person a "nutter" for advocating the initiation of force on non-religious people then do not claim to be rational.

Phil Crimmins:

If you don't see the difference between that and the atheist calling the religious person a "nutter" for advocating the initiation of force on non-religious people then do not claim to be rational.

Lets see...some anarchists call for the use of violence.   Therefore all anarchists are violent and insane nutters.

Stereotypes don't work and if you think they do then do not claim to be rational.

See how it works both ways?  Isn't it better to take the high road?

Actually, it doesn't work your way at all. Anarchists do not worship the same god, or believe in the divinity of the same book.

Stefan Molyneux:

Actually, it doesn't work your way at all. Anarchists do not worship the same god, or believe in the divinity of the same book.

I never said they did.  I was making a point about stereotypes and my point does not require that all anarchists believe in the same God or book, simply that some of them believe that violence is an acceptable tool.  Do you deny that many anarchist groups advocate using violence to end the state?  And if so shouldn't all anarchists be painted as "nutters" by the same logic that is being applied here to all religious people?

When you say all "religious nutters" use threats of violence do you include Quakers and other groups that explicitly forbid the use of violence?   Or are they not "nutters" simply because of their opinion on violence?

How about Buddhists?   Are they religious nutters?  Or is it just Christians that are "nutters"?

This discussion reminds me of actions taken by many groups that claim victimhood for abuses & slights they have experienced and when they get together they very quickly start identifying what groups it's OK for them to single out for ridicule.  If (or when) these groups ever achieve a majority it can be scary because they will very often act on the prejiduces that were built up.

It also reminds me of discussions of the military, and discussing how you dehumanize the enemy so that you don't have to give them the simple respect that another human being deserves.

I'm also reminded of something Stefan said in podcast 1233 that a libertarian that uses slander is the lowest of the low because of all the slanderous things that have been said to keep libertarian ideals down.   Well isn't that equally true for an anarchist?  And isn't treating people by stereotype effectively a way a slandering the individual with the crimes of the group that he may or may not have participated in or even condoned?

And let me ask the followup question:

Given that it is OK by your standard to ridicule certain groups....what standards or qualifications do you have for those groups?

So far I've identified:

1. Religious People
2. Statists / Nationalists (although I did like Alan's imagery with "Goose-stepping flag-wavers")
3. Abusive Parents (although by your standard isn't that nearly all parents?)

In total doesn't this basically include almost every person on the planet that isn't a FreeDomainer?

Do you really want to be that exclusionary?

lowkey:

Stefan Molyneux:

Actually, it doesn't work your way at all. Anarchists do not worship the same god, or believe in the divinity of the same book.

I never said they did.  I was making a point about stereotypes and my point does not require that all anarchists believe in the same God or book, simply that some of them believe that violence is an acceptable tool.  Do you deny that many anarchist groups advocate using violence to end the state?  And if so shouldn't all anarchists be painted as "nutters" by the same logic that is being applied here to all religious people?

When you say all "religious nutters" use threats of violence do you include Quakers and other groups that explicitly forbid the use of violence?   Or are they not "nutters" simply because of their opinion on violence?

How about Buddhists?   Are they religious nutters?  Or is it just Christians that are "nutters"?

This discussion reminds me of actions taken by many groups that claim victimhood for abuses & slights they have experienced and when they get together they very quickly start identifying what groups it's OK for them to single out for ridicule.  If (or when) these groups ever achieve a majority it can be scary because they will very often act on the prejiduces that were built up.

It also reminds me of discussions of the military, and discussing how you dehumanize the enemy so that you don't have to give them the simple respect that another human being deserves.

I'm also reminded of something Stefan said in podcast 1233 that a libertarian that uses slander is the lowest of the low because of all the slanderous things that have been said to keep libertarian ideals down.   Well isn't that equally true for an anarchist?  And isn't treating people by stereotype effectively a way a slandering the individual with the crimes of the group that he may or may not have participated in or even condoned?

 

Whats slanderous about calling a crazy person crazy? Do you agree its crazy to believe in a divine book that says Atheists, gays and disobedient children should be put to death?

Ugh, that Ron Paul video made me retch....

 Read more >>   Options >>  

Phil Crimmins:

If you don't see the difference between that and the atheist calling the religious person a "nutter" for advocating the initiation of force on non-religious people then do not claim to be rational.

I agree, but just to clarify, if sanity is defined as conformity to reality, sound in judgment and reason, then those who do not conform to reality and not only believe in things that do not exist in reality but inflict such beliefs on their children, these people are not only insane but abusive and this brings me to a question.

Why are the people on this thread not complaining to those whom this thread is the subject (the e-mails) about their abusiveness towards their children (Phil being one of those children) and towards Stef? If you want to complain about abusiveness, why are you complaining to the most rational people in the room who merely point out irrationality?

One more question..

If I believed in pink unicorns and that wearing only spandex and a shower cap will result in my being saved by the sacred leprechaun of rainbows, would it be abusive to call me nutty?

Aaron727:

Whats slanderous about calling a crazy person crazy? Do you agree its crazy to believe in a divine book that says Atheists, gays and disobedient children should be put to death?

First I am not a biblical literalist so I do not take every word of the bible as an explicit command and I think that a very convincing case can be made for manipulations of the text that have been done over the centuries to consolidate power for the church & the state. 

Second, as I recall the sections calling for death for these people are in the old testament and so wouldn't apply to the new covenant under Christianity so it would be a mistake for anyone claiming to be a Christian to blindly follow them.  

Full Disclosure:  I'm not sure I can even call myself a Christian anymore because much like Newton I question the idea of an equally divine trinity but much like my political journey this is something I am working through rather than reached a final destination.

For those reasons, I would say that someone who advocates death for atheists, gays and disobedient children is not doing it on the basis of scripture or faith but rather on other prejudices from his community  (as Fred Phelps does).

...

As for the question of calling someone crazy, it depends on the motivation of the person making the statement.   If the statement is made as an honest description of a persons activities then it may not be slander.   However in this case, we are dealing with stereotypes and statements that are made at best in humor or at worst maliciously.   This carries them over the line from a simple observation into an area that isn't as nice.  

I'm not saying there aren't times to take the low road, and I've been known to do it myself  (mainly with politicians or religious leaders whom I view as abusing their positions)  but at least lets be honest enough to recognize when we do it rather than pretending it's somehow something more pure than simple name calling on the playground. 

Additionally I think we need to exercise care when we do it because some of the worst events in history started with simple prejiduces that grew into hatred and genocide.  Now many will say that is because the state used the prejiduces to manipulate and control the greater population but we can deny them that tool by simply being aware of our own tendencies.

...

Final Point:  In many threads on the military, there has been discussions of how the training works to dehumanize the enemy to allow the soldiers to more "easily" kill and with fewer regrets.   One common tools that people claim is used for this is to develop the prejiduces of the soldiers such that the enemy is less human than they are.   In many ways, this is exactly what is happening here.  When as a group we treat any other individuals as nothing more than products of their group membership we are doing the same thing.  This allows us to not feel obligated to give them the simple respect that all people should get and creates artificial divisions in society that will do more harm than any good accomplished.

Nathan:

 

One more question..

If I believed in pink unicorns and that wearing only spandex and a shower cap will result in my being saved by the sacred leprechaun of rainbows, would it be abusive to call me nutty?

 

Like many things this is a question of context.   If the context is an attempt to explain someones behavior then it may be fair to call a person with these views nutty.   On the other hand, if the purpose is to riducle and belittle them then it crosses the line into abuse. 

Additionally, I feel that including such comments (whether they are abusive or not) can be counter productive when you are trying to build a community or influence others.  As Stefan has said the world isn't ready for many of the ideas discussed on FDR (and on the other individual blogs, etc) so you are in the early stages of trying to influence and educate others.   If comments of these types distract from the overall message then the comments are harmful & shouldn't be tolerated even if they are correct.