NP, I have some rage to vent
 

So I'm generally a high academic student, with general liberal views towards society. I believe that society has progressed up to a point of where we should be above older ways of which have been abolished years ago. Unfortunately, I'm a high school student. Because I'm a high school student, I'm surrounded by ignorant pricks.


Even these ignorant pricks wouldn't be this ignorant.


So, I'm a strong advocate for equal rights. Black, Jews, Homosexuals...you name it, I really can't complain if they exist or not (unless they're a conservative). Nobody's opposed to this at all, and nobody has said to my face if they have been opposed to it or not. Due to this, I'm a strong advocate for my school's GSA (Gay Straight Alliance).

Now, personally, I'm not gay (NonCon believes otherwise). However, when someone goes ahead and writes on a poster supporting our cause "IMMORAL, GODLESS BASTARDS!", that's when I can't take it anymore.

I don't mind if people have ignorant opinions. However, they can keep it to themselves. This vandalism was put right on a poster which everyone could clearly see as they walked down the halls.

My rage, as I saw this vandalized on the poster, spiked to a point where I felt very violent. Not only did this motherfucker write this down, but he didn't do it in front of anyone, and nobody caught him/her (this is a hall where security cameras aren't prominent due to so many classrooms being there). The little douchebag is a coward at that.

I've been asking around all day at school if anybody had information regarding the situation. Sadly not.

To this very moment, I feel such a passionate rage not only towards this person, but to the very words themselves. "Godless". That implies that the person who wrote this is religious. I've never liked religion...but now, at this point, I want it abolished. Religion is not only fiction, but the cause of all this hate to begin with. What's so wrong with being a homosexual? Nothing. It's not a choice. It's not a dysfunction. It's a natural occurrence. And some overzealous idiot thinks he/she has the right to express his/her ignorant views upon everyone else.


I honestly think the world would be a better place if this person had no rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if religion was abolished forever.

I like how you are supremely tolerant except for wanting to abolish religion.
Like you are tolerating jews but only once you ban their religion.

Also can't really debate validity of religion here, rules about that, so I'll just be like Be more tolerant and don't be ignorant of others.

Also violent rages don't sound like a tolerant person to me.

If you can't take people being ignorant jackasses, then what the hell are you doing on the Internet?

EDIT: Okay that may have come out a bit more hostile then I meant it too, but getting really angry at ignorant jackasses is sort of stupid and pointless, given that by definition they're going to shout their ignorant, stupid jackass opinions from the rooftops.

The matter is not criticizing me but looking at what this person has done due to the ignorance of their cult.

He's raging, of course he's saying intolerant things. That's what pure rage is, intolerance of the UNIVERSE and the supreme need to DESTROY IT and its RIGHTS.

Once the rage-induced haze subsides, I'm sure you won't think that.

But your criticise of him is that he is intolerant. You are being intolerant by calling his religion a cult so your criticism is invalid.

literally lollin at this thread.

EDIT: like my avatar, but with laughter

Alright, let me fix that.

I really don't mind if religious organizations exist. I really don't. It's generally a part of my rage of which makes me say that. However, their religious views are promoting hatred towards people of who do not deserve hatred. They've done nothing to harm society in any way whatsoever.

Religion is probably the leading cause of war.

So why not abolish organized religion? People can believe whatever they want, but I don't think that it should have a mass following of which continues to negatively influence society.

Sure, believe that there's some God to save you. Just don't make your God an ignorant prick.

So you are tolerant, except to people you don't like. ok...

See, your liberty ends where that of the next person begins... that's been equal. It's not "keep it to yourself". He didn't vandalize your poster because he felt strongly about his opinion, most likely he did it because he knew that he wouldn't get caught.

Now, you can express yourself, and the douche can express himself. You didn't kept your opinion to yourself when you putted that poster up, did you? You made it public... so did the douche. Just in a douche way.

And about Religion? Not that we talk a lot about that around here... but your problem is not with Religion. Your problem is with a religious person. The religion itself is fine if left alone, our interpretation and our actions based on those interpretations are what can cause effect on others. So blame the person, if you feel like you must, not the ideology they twist to fit their world view.

And really, if you keep this Holier than thou attitude, how much better than this douche are you? Some people act on anger simply because they haven't been given enough or proper information... would you be angry at a illeterate kid because he is 9 and never learned how to read? Would you call it a snob? No...

People who carry prejudice aren't that different from that. They lack a perspective to see that we're all the same and the labels used to classify us are mostly bullshit.

So, a prick vandalize your poster? Report it, and put another one. They vandalized again? Ask permission to put your posters near the cameras. Got denied? Or that didn't work? Step up and be louder about your message.

now, what's wrong is you thinking about shutting down religious freedom and going for violence just because a Moron scribbled some nonsense in your poster.

I think I can cover this one...

There was more but I just couldn't edit the rest of the quote to sound right. I hang my head in shame.

EDIT:
No, greed is the leading cause of war, followed by fear. Religion is just a convenient cover.

No shit.

I dunno I'd probably leave the graffiti up, but write another one underneath it to try and point out that viewpoints like this are precisely why your school needs a Gay Straight Alliance. This guy went ahead and exposed his point of view, might as well give it all the negative attention it deserves.

e: probably a great deal more constructive a response than going on the internet and being all like HOSHIT RELIGION, too

You'll find someone eventually.
 

How could she? He lacks relevant degrees.

But he's only a poor, woebegotten high school lad.

Quick reminder Nightie, some religious organizations are humanitarian, and others help maintain social orders in some cultures. Whatever that order may be, its generally better then outright anarchy. Well, I imagine that's debatable. But!

Religion does serve a purpose in society I'm afraid. Perhaps you should look into that before jumping to the conclusion that abolishing it would be good?

Anyway, you're kinda right in principle. The guy (or girl) who wrote over your poster was being a jerk, but...

...see, that makes you look pretty bad too.

So, just, you know, get a new poster and move on. Or do what Meister said, life gives you lemons and all that stuff. Might end up working in your favor.

Even the Crusades were about wealth as much as about piety.

But yeah others have summed it up, your problem is with a person not with religion as a whole. You are stereotyping. I can find atheists who are racist backed up by a misunderstanding of "science" just like you can find religious people who are intolerent based on misunderstanding of their religious tenants. The argument works both ways.

If you really want to achieve something, you should take the matter up with whatever sort of student representatio you have and get some kind of education going. Intolerance usually stems from ignorance and things like talks about "gay awareness" can actually help.

Hey! Hey! Anarchy just means no leader or no leadership. I hate the connotation those evil non-anarchists have created with anarchy necessarily being total chaos.

Maybe democracy is total chaos huh, how about that? Huh? Punk?

Stop taking religion so seriously.

Sorry, that was bothering me. Not a FTFY moment, but looking at what was going on, i.e. nothing at the time, the Crusades were really just an excuse to send bored military/second sons off to wreak some havoc as someone else's problem and let them have a bit of their own wealth while they were at it. The conversation between whatever royalty at the time and the Pope pretty much amounted to:

R: "Yo, we got some bored fuckin' mothas. Thinkin' 'bout raidin' some shit."
P: "Holy Land's got shit, dawg. Say you takin' it back fo' da Big G."
R: "Shit, P, we gonna rock they world. Peace!"

As always, Oingo Boingo shows us the way.
 

~Only a lad! You really can't blame him!
Only a lad! Society made him!~

Presumably he then got onto a horse that blares rap music whenever it gallops?

If Anarchy just means no dominant system of government, and everyone stays occupied with their own lives, then I'm sure the system might work out fairly well. Especially on a small scale, like a village or something. This is, of course, ignoring that people tend to build hierarchies around themselves, even when they don't need one.

But, Anarchy's probably not quite as effective at doing something on a large scale.

'Course, democracy's really slow about doing just that too. Might be worse at it.

Well, since I don't see looting in the streets, blood on the sidewalk, or fire!

I'm gonna say no.

@ Azisien: I take it that's a gentle way of saying I'm very bad at gangsta-speak? :sweatdrop

Rioting is soooooooooooooooo 20th century, we do all the looting, lynching, and firing politically, electronically, and wirelessly now!

I absolutely could not do any better, but that wasn't enough to convince the cringes of pain!

Well... now we're talking about degrees aren't we?

I'm pretty fucking sure you can get some Looting, Blooded Sidewalks and fire going around if you look at the right places, around proper dates and times, during power shortages or depending of who wins any sort of sports competition that day... or if people drink too much beer or if there isn't enough for everybody.

I mean, even the world of Mad Max had hierarchies

If you can't take criticism stop putting up posters.

Stop trolling in my thread, you sad excuse of a human being.


EDIT: I love the amount of wonderful support I'm garnering.

Learn to cope.
 

I believe a wise man once said:

Then it wasn't a true Anarchy?

I've never seen the movie, but the word Dystopian's in the Wikipedia write-up, so I'm thinking it makes the case that whatever system was in place wasn't good!

Anyway, apparently an Anarchy can be a term applied to a Utopia and a Dystopia. Kinda surprising, since the only examples of Anarchy I can think of have ended badly, but I'm hardly a history buff. So, for some reason, I want to call the whole thing impractical, and leave it at that.

@Azisien: Sorry I didn't look the word up before using it?

Hey, check the bottom of page one!

I think you'd be getting a lot more support if you didn't claim to be an extremely tolerant person, then in the next breath condemn your peers and religion as a whole as horrible, horrible people. And then you started playing the "my thread" game.

If I could find a way to bottle up the hypocrisy inherent in that statement, I would be set for a life of gimmick beer-making.

Also, it's not really trolling with fifth unless there is a Gif illustrating a passive agressive insult against your nature and intellect as a being.

I actually see it more if an Agressive Dictatorship preseted and Anarchy. There is some for of Governing power, but it can be taken by force if you simply have the power to do it.

Max himself was more Anarchist than the freaky dudes in the desert

Welcome to being a teenager. The good news: you'll grow out of it.

I had a good idea, but you had it first.

It's not red for a reason.
 

Yeah so no. Keep your insults out of discussions, please.

And hopefully grow into the non-evil adult equivalent of it: "things would have a chance of being better if religion was abandoned forever." Hey, it's nicer, if a more insignificant position to hold.

The minute the world heads over to anarchy, I'm starting my own dawn Viking Fleet. It's time to Pillage and Burn things!

I was under the impression that Anarchy was strictly a temporary "thing" (inasmuch as a lack of something, i.e government, can be called a 'thing') until a more stable government could be (re)established.

Someone didn't read V for Vendetta.

Well, eventually someone will be able to generate enough followers to start taking control of various regions. So if anarchy ever did happen, it would only last long enough till someone charismatic or powerful enough came along to take control of the situation.

That's why I say a viking fleet to pillage and burn. That way we would have fun before they got organized and then we just fade away with all or ill gotten gains.

Precisely. See: Command and Conquer's Kane.

I feel all warm, fuzzy and tolerant inside.

That's a mighty big assumption there. Granted, I can see the logical train of thought behind it. But it is based on todays logic, or more accurately on present society's logic. There's no real way of knowing without trying. And even then there's nothing to say everything happens the same way twice.

Actually, its more based on the long line of history humanity has had. It's filled with people striving for power and doing what it takes to get that power. Anarchy wouldn't change that, it might put it on hold for a little while but it wouldn't change it at all. Eventually someone will come along who will take what he wants a build an empire out of it.

This is awesome.

Every time I read something and think it couldn't get any better it does!

See?! See?!

It's belligerent, yet classy!

What? That gif was me 100% agreeing with Ryander.

I was totally like "oh man he just said that about how the thread can't get any better but keeps getting better and now the post after that is gonna be this awesome gif that makes the thread even better, ol' Ryan's going to love it."

It was the least belligerent thing I've posted all day!

This is going to sound cliché as all hell, but that made more sense in my head before i posted...

...seriously.

This is going to sound cliché as well, but holy beesus do I hate all of you. But mostly only because you're so intolerant.

EDIT:
History, yes but not the future. That was mostly the point I was trying to make. As fruitless (in lack of a better word) of an argument as it is, you can't know about the future.

Hell, there's a ton about history we don't know either.

This forum is soooo disappointingYou guys are all right.http://i606.photobucket.com/albums/t...ticons/shy.gif

It's ironic, really. The only way anarchy can be maintained is artificially, through the actions of a higher authority, which prevents the accumulation of power and support...

Though it'd be an interesting experiment. Can society be influenced to resent authority independently?

Hate to break it to you, Oster, but looking at history provides a means for guessing what we can expect in the future. Humanity builds on its own history. Nothing can become without first considering what came before. Light bulbs were the result of hundreds of failed experiments to produce an electric lamp to replace oil lamps and candles. Oil lamps and candles stemmed from torches. Torches stemmed from the first cave man to ever build a fire.

To extend that to humanity, we have an unchanging history of greed, power lust, and feelings of superiority to everything that's not part of our in-group, which leads to war, grasping for power, and oppression. Unless we do a 180 on a global level, by which I mean no human alive can have an ounce of ambition, desire, or group identity, a Utopian anarchy will never happen.

I'm not intolerent, I just hate all you gits equally!

On the future part you are partially right but that's also assuming humanity learns from it mistakes, which doesn't seem to be true most of the time :/

I have to apologize for being an asshole in my earlier posts today in this thread. My blood sugar was low due to the fact that I had not eaten all day, I had 5 hours of sleep last night, I had a presentation and a test today, and that one incident just really set me off.

I'm not going to say "abolish religion" per se, but I just get really annoyed when people who are overzealous Christians go around yelling "OMG I HAET TEH GAYZ GUYZ FUK GRR".


I feel like an asshole.

I must know, where is that gif from? I saw it earlier and was like, I don't know if he's mocking me or not, but it really doesn't matter because that gif is awesome.

No need to apologize. No food or sleep on an exam day would make most anyone go a little batty.

I remember when I was at 154 posts. Oh what it was to be young...

Just sayin'...do we really care? If you're an asshole to someone, then you're an asshole. It doesn't really lend itself to caveats. It's like playing a hockey game, having a bad game and then saying "Well I was playing on a sprained ankle." You still had a bad game, albeit for a good reason, but it still happened. The best solution would be to go on to do better later in some twisted internet forum redemption quest. But in the counter-argument, I'm kind of going up to the short guy and saying "Why can't you reach the top shelf?"

I'm off track. Back to anarchy:

Really at this point we're just rehashing the Liberal vs Realist idea. The realist view being that the world is anarchy and the state is only permitted to exist because of fear, and the Liberal view from Locke and stating that the state nature occurs in nature. We're all logical and self-interested and because of it will realize that through cooperation everyone can have a jet-car, a hot trophy wife, and an exotic rich-mahogany liquor cabinet. Kind of like a socio-political free market. And we saw how THAT one turned out...

Well, full blown, original minded, large scale Anarchy is not really self sustainable. Because we're not equal. Some of us are indeed better than others. Both Physically and mentally, so, as the mass becomes larger, it's only natural for the "weaker" ( i use the term loosely, just to illustrate) to gravitate towards those they found to be "stronger" .

There you stabilish a moral chain of command, which then should generate positive and negative feedback and relationships, which would then define a chain of trust. Thus, creating a "Line" of command that can define itself in the present and for the future.

At that point, you don't have Anarchy at all, you have a fragmented society made of "Hubs" of power that will, naturally, at some point collide and clash or ally or disband to another territory.

And at THAT point you already have another form of Goverment stabilished. Raging from pure Tyrany right up to full blown democracy. It just depends of the social enviroment and they people present at the time of conception.

I want to pet you on your head and tell you "It's all right." Maybe it's 'cause I'm drunk, maybe it's the Ouran Host Club I just watched. I dunno.

LIES! You're too coherent to be drunk.

It always amusing when these vehemently anti-religion people roll around.

Why, you ask?

Because they are so positively religious about thier anti-religion/atheism, it's just deliciously ironic.

You know that every post I've made after about six PM EST for a while has been a drunk post, right? I get drunk every night; I just proofread my posts. It's a drunkard's experience.

http://pics.livejournal.com/miraigen/pic/000ece72

Huh.

I... don't know what to make of this thread.

Nightshine: FUCK HOMOPHOBES, and also religions.

Everyone else: NO FUCK YOU!


I mean, what?

Is this really the level of maturity we have going here?

There were some lulz to be had, but it was hard to make them out through the pain of watching every single person in this thread smash their heads against the proverbial brick wall.

I mean, shit, Nightshine may be an ass, and as an (assumedly) atheist highschool kid he's got a good god rage boner going on, but really NPF?

Your response is the blanket statement we've been hearing from people trying to defend institutionalized homophobia, racism, and other not-good racisms since the beginning of time? "Why can't you be tolerant of our intolerance!?"

Really?

Really really?

Jesus.

Maybe I misunderstood something?
 

I don't know if blaming homophobia, specifically, on religion could really be considered dumb, all things considered. Maybe a little short sighted, maybe a little ignorant of the human condition, but not flat out dumb. And even then, only when you add the modifier "all" to it.

However, I don't think we're allowed to discuss that here. Point is he didn't even mention religion until the last two sentences. The entire rest of his post was all about how he hates homophobes/racists/other intolerant people fucking his shit up.

The first response he got (and most of the rest of them, echoed it) was "And violent rages don't sound like a tolerant person to me," which just smacks of "You're not allowed to be tolerant unless you're also tolerant of intolerance," complaining about his religious intolerance aside.

Further, did we need 40+ posts of the same thing in 2 hours?


I mean the guy finally shows a modicum of respect for humanity, after you all dogpiled on him for defending misogynistic internet musicians, and he gets dogpiled again because he's, holy shit, a highschool atheist that doesn't like religion.

How many of us can, honestly, really, truly say that they haven't said the same thing in the past?

Don't make me go dig up threads from when religion discussion was allowed for awhile there.

Rigorous discussion is forbidden.
 

I've had someone use this argument against me seriously before. It's incredibly depressing.

See Kuro's "Welcome to being a teenager. Don't worry, you grow out of it." post.

I think the main thing was, and I told this to him myself earlier today, that the persona he's created on the forum isn't exactly impressing a lot of people, so, while he may have good points or whatever, people are far more likely to be dickish to him as a result, and his best bet is just to slowly work his way out of that first impression.

I didn't think my single post in this thread was very lumpable.

Yeah, but Brian's the only one who said something like that.

Also, I don't think I ever grew out of it. I just learned to deal, but hey.

I totally agree that this is what is happening here, and that's most of my problem.

He's a teenager. He's expected to do stupid shit.

The average age of the forums, however, is a bit older than that. We should be expected to NOT do stupid immature shit, like dog piling someone just because we don't like him every time he says anything half way offensive.

I mean, you don't see me lambasting Nikose every post he makes, do you? It's called maturity.

Edit For Arch: I was using Hyperbole.

Apologies to you, Brian, and uh... Azisien? Oster I think was just arguing anarchy so him, too.

That doesn't seem right.
 

Really? His "best bet" is to accept that people are going to be assholes to him?

It is dumb. Religion didn't spontaneously invent fear, it's just one of many things we use to give it shape and teach it to others - often for good reason, but then not always. If you want to blame religion for all that stuff, you're going to have to stretch that out to culture in general. Or you could just, y'know, blame people for being homophobic. OR, even better, you could do something more constructive than than trying to blame something, and maybe actually help people overcome their fears.

You could go after certain religious institutions for being big proponents of homophobia, but say you abolish X religion and religious institution; do you think all of the people involved in it will just up and change their core character, or will they just find another way to express it? The institutions and religions aren't the problem. They can't do anything. They're as alive as corporations.

Edit: Okay, I guess if your point isn't that it's debatable or that it could be right, then yeah, I can see considering it more of an immature worldview. But I don't think the "all" has anything to do with it.

Eh, I don't think we're really debating points of theology (I say we even though this is the first post I've made in this thread) or anything. I wouldn't really call this arguing religion since the point isn't whether or not X religion got it right.

Best bet isn't always "And then everything was better forever."
 

Unfortunately, I left my fairy dust and perfect world in my other pants pocket, so, realistically speaking, he's going to have to cope with the fact that people are going to treat him differently based on the majority of his posting career here than they would someone else with a different one.

Because they can convince people a magical man lives in the sky and loves them and (blah blah blah religious discussion about how religion is silly), but it's totally inconceivable that when applied to children it could teach them how to hate people, right?

If you use disrespectful terms, then this will become one of those internet religious debates.

Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how this applies to what I said. And I don't mean that in a snarky way, I'm just really not getting where your "because" is supposed to fit in, so I can't really respond to it.

But this is the internet, so that bar's a little too high.
 

You folks are at least moderately intelligent and sociable and perhaps even mature in some cases. I suppose I was assuming not to see advice that basically was, "Yo check it we're going to troll you for a little while. Ride it out."

I may be reading too much into your post, though. I mean I get the idea behind it, yeah, it happens.

Basically

Me: I wouldn't call it stupid, necessarily, to blame religion for some of the homophobia, specifically.
You: It's stupid to say religion causes homophobia, 'cause people will be homophobic anyway, even when religions do promote it.
Me: Religion can convince people of lots of stupid things, what's stupid about thinking it might, especially in children, convince them to hate gay people?

So yeah, the disrespectful term was kinda necessary to make my point.

This is also why I'd rather not have this discussion here, because while it might be possible to make blanket statements like "Well there's gonna be homophobes anyway" it's very hard to argue back pointing out where religions do support homophobia and how such support can be absorbed into the psyches of people that go to religion for whatever reason--especially at young ages--without treading into dangerous waters.

It's not to say homophobia would vanish if we didn't have religion. THAT would be a stupid stance to take, however it isn't stupid to suggest that the teachings of some religions help to spread homophobia into future generations, and even into adults who are willing to believe anything if it gives them comfort--see cult victims.

The suggestion that one can't do all three is mind-boggling.

I'm not necessarily sure it should be, but that's another debate for another time.
 

Basically, regardless of whether you think this is fair or not, before the forum starts taking him more seriously and treating him more respectfully, he's going to have to earn it. Given many of his previous posts, he's going to have to earn it really hard.

I'm not going to lie to him and say it's any other way, even if it should be.