Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on February 19, 2007, 04:59:35 am
-
I don't know whether to laugh or cry... do people this ****ing stupid really, honestly exist? In a 1st world country?
http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp
-
Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
Yeah. We're the don't pray, drink, eat pork and don't believe in Allah sect! :lol:
-
No, I refuse to believe these are real. They can't be real. For the love of God tell me they're not real!!
-
Good times....good times.
edit: I think that if Kazan were still around, he would literally implode with rage, forming smaller, denser White Dwarf Kazan.
-
"[Replying to 'as for not seeing evolution it takes several million years... incase you missed that memo...']
several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years."
Heh heh.
-
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."
That sums it up nicely.
-
If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol
Best quote ever.
EDIT: I take that back:
Even though computers aren't capable of rational thought and know nothing about morals, yet they have more sense than the most learned atheist. Case and point: The other day while working on a PC, I began deleting unwanted files. There was an html file that showed all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Since it was a duplicate file, I decided to delete it also. When I clicked "delete", the usual message came on the screen that said, "Are you sure you want to send the 'TEN COMMANDMETS' to the Recycle bin?" The question struck me very deeply because of how it was worded and for a moment I hesitated to delete the file. After clicking "yes", a message box came up on the screen that said an illegal act had been performed by a program. Now what atheist or heathen has sense enough to think as correctly as that unthinking computer. Atheists do not think it's an illegal act to try to destroy the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
-
:jaw: :sigh:
-
"But God don't talk in Arabic. He talks in a REAL language, namely, English. It's true that back in them days He translated that to some other language after Speaking it in English, but after all, it's His universe and He can do what He doggone well wants to do."
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
I don't know whether to laugh or cry... do people this ****ing stupid really, honestly exist? In a 1st world country?
Well, as long as they're keeping their hands off of my government and staying out of my legislation, they can be as ****ing stupid as they want.
-
"But God don't talk in Arabic. He talks in a REAL language, namely, English. It's true that back in them days He translated that to some other language after Speaking it in English, but after all, it's His universe and He can do what He doggone well wants to do."
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Oh come on. We all know that God is really English. Just like in the old movies. :D
-
"Here lies the only good atheist. A dead atheist."
Rofl? And I'm the cruel demonic inhuman creature? Pardon the pun, but.. Jesus, these people need to be slapped..
Oh.. #37 is just too good not to laugh at.
-
Wow...
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"
Oh my GOD:
"Athiests as a Majority
This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go **** a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!
The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.
ATHIEST DAD: Hey!
ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!
ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.
ATHIEST DAD: Why not?
ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men ****ing eachother in there.
ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?
ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!
Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.
ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!
ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!
The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.
RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!
THE END
Scary, isn't it?"
-
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"
You can just imagine them crawling out during the day Morlock-like and pointing at the sun and making quizzical noizes. :lol:
-
Oh, hell. I think I'm going to choke to death on my poptart laughing.
...oh, wait, I think I'm going to vomit it up instead.
The entropy and the gravity ones are priceless. Makes you want to hit them over the head with the sun, don't it?
-
Yeah. We're the don't pray, drink, eat pork and don't believe in Allah sect! :lol:
Holy ****, that's me! No seriously! That's me! I'm still an Islam on paper, but I don't do anything!
-
"I wouldnt be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay."
Lol, endanger his salvation? Its not right to be gay, but to endanger his salvation? Lol.
If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol
Best quote ever.
EDIT: I take that back:
Even though computers aren't capable of rational thought and know nothing about morals, yet they have more sense than the most learned atheist. Case and point: The other day while working on a PC, I began deleting unwanted files. There was an html file that showed all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Since it was a duplicate file, I decided to delete it also. When I clicked "delete", the usual message came on the screen that said, "Are you sure you want to send the 'TEN COMMANDMETS' to the Recycle bin?" The question struck me very deeply because of how it was worded and for a moment I hesitated to delete the file. After clicking "yes", a message box came up on the screen that said an illegal act had been performed by a program. Now what atheist or heathen has sense enough to think as correctly as that unthinking computer. Atheists do not think it's an illegal act to try to destroy the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Nice quotes, i like both. And the second one is interesting, the first is bull.
-
:rolleyes:
Prepared to make a contribution yourself?
-
I'm amazed these people even use Windows, all things considered, I would have thought they considered it from a 'polluted' source...
-
Nice quotes, i like both. And the second one is interesting, the first is bull.
Actually it's not. That's actually what the bible says on the matter.
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. -- Deuteronomy 22:23-24
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
-
"I wouldnt be surprised if he's the one who's feeding my son all the homosexual propaganda about how its 'ok' to be gay."
Lol, endanger his salvation? Its not right to be gay, but to endanger his salvation? Lol.
If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol
Best quote ever.
EDIT: I take that back:
Even though computers aren't capable of rational thought and know nothing about morals, yet they have more sense than the most learned atheist. Case and point: The other day while working on a PC, I began deleting unwanted files. There was an html file that showed all of the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Since it was a duplicate file, I decided to delete it also. When I clicked "delete", the usual message came on the screen that said, "Are you sure you want to send the 'TEN COMMANDMETS' to the Recycle bin?" The question struck me very deeply because of how it was worded and for a moment I hesitated to delete the file. After clicking "yes", a message box came up on the screen that said an illegal act had been performed by a program. Now what atheist or heathen has sense enough to think as correctly as that unthinking computer. Atheists do not think it's an illegal act to try to destroy the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Nice quotes, i like both. And the second one is interesting, the first is bull.
Charismatic, I'd suggest leaving this thread ASAP. You're going to be pummeled and put into the same category as them. :p
-
"We should burn the gays at the stake, it worked in the Inquisition...I don't see any witches around anymore (real witches, not those hippy wiccan imitation witches)."
made me laugh till I coughed.
we should visit some of these forums mentioned.
-
"isnt evolution being thrown out by most scholars now days? I heard that most hardvard scholars have thrown out the possibily of evolution."
Yes, we must all give up evolution because those HARDVARD scholars did so. :lol:
"How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that
1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys
2.Even Darwin said his theories were wrong before he died so why do you still believe them
3.do you really not believe the bible it says we were created in seven days not millions of years
4.how come we cant speak monkey
Just for a fact ape like creatures are monkeys Just in case certain people get on this thread"
Look at 2, just look at 2. ::) ::) ::)
-
I can't stop staring at 3 and 4 and being depressed...lmao...
-
Its always fascinating to see things like this. No doubts, whatsoever.. Mindtrap.
Makes one wonder, what would follow if we could all completely drop our belief systems, for a split second
-
"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares, and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."
--René Descartes, First Meditation
-
Well, these ****ers are ****ty parents, so the survival/reproduction rate for their offspring declines, so it all works out in the end.
-
Some pretty f***** up people there... :lol:
Altough one thing popped up into my mind... are those all quotes from fanatical Christians (or are there members of other religions also)?
If so why are they tehre on that site? Who put them there? Are they even real? And why do I get the impression that there are so many christian-bashing sites, like some modern witch-hunt?
Now I know a lot of people, both belivers and atheists.. and I can say that in both groups I can find an equal percentage of "crazy" people...
-
My personal favorite is this one. (http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly#9) Reminds me somewhat of Admiral Koth.
I'm not sure why you're all so surprised. Hasn't it been said over and over again that people are stupid?
-
Some pretty f***** up people there... :lol:
Altough one thing popped up into my mind... are those all quotes from fanatical Christians (or are there members of other religions also)?
If so why are they tehre on that site? Who put them there? Are they even real? And why do I get the impression that there are so many christian-bashing sites, like some modern witch-hunt?
Now I know a lot of people, both belivers and atheists.. and I can say that in both groups I can find an equal percentage of "crazy" people...
The most vocal types of nutcase seem to be fundamentalist christians. I can only presume that this is because, usually being american, they have the best access to mass media. I wouldn't view it as a 'witch hunt' of anything beyond bigoted idiots, and it's no worse than slagging of KKK members or the like. Plus, it's worth remembering that people who put themselves on a pedastal of both moral and spiritual superiority and then proceed to be laughably idiotic and intolerant bigots are always fair game.
-
Altough one thing popped up into my mind... are those all quotes from fanatical Christians (or are there members of other religions also)?
If so why are they tehre on that site? Who put them there? Are they even real?
You obviously haven't spotted that every single post has links back to the thread it was originally posted in. So if this isn't real someone has the time to register multiple accounts on a multitude of sites and then invent spurious nonsense while posing as a fundementalist Christian in order to then copy and paste everything on the main site.
Given some of the nonsense I've seen posted in various religious debates both here and on other forums I don't know why anyone would bother given that there appears to be plenty of that sort of nonsense to go around.
Charismatic, I'd suggest leaving this thread ASAP. You're going to be pummeled and put into the same category as them. :p
Anyone who starts pummelling better watch out. If you want to argue on the facts that's fine though.
While I'm at it
TODAY, AFTER READING A BOOK CALLED "PORTALS TO CLEANSING" BY DR. HENRY MALONE, I DECIDED I NEEDED TO HAVE MY ANIMALS DELIVERED AS WELL. I STARTED WITH MY CAT. I HAVE ALREADY ANOINTED THEM AND PLED THE BLOOD OVER THEM, BUT I DECIDED THEY NEEDED A DELIVERANCE AS WELL.
I ANOINTED HER WITH OIL IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEN I DEDICATED HER TO THE LORD. THEN I BEGAN THE DELIVERANCE. AS SOON AS I TOLD THE EVIL FORCES TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY, THE CAT DID TOO ! SHE RAN FROM ME AND HID. THEN, SHE RAN TO THE DOOR. SHE LOOKED FRIGHTENED. SO, LOOKING HER IN THE EYE, AND BEING ABLE TO TELL THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE BESIDES HER, I COMMANDED THEM TO LEAVE HER BODY IMMEDIATELY AS SHE IS DEDICATED TO JESUS CHRIST AND HIS PROPERTY. I LET HER OUTSIDE AND SHE YAWNED...WHICH IS AN INDICATION THEY ARE LEAVING. SHE STAYED OUTSIDE, DESPITE THE WIND BLOWING HARD. THEN, AFTER ABOUT 10-15 MINUTES SHE CAME BACK IN. SHE SEEMS DIFFERENT. IN A GOOD WAY. I GUESS THE DOG IS NEXT.
:lol:
-
"Marijuana is the Gateway Drug.
And Darwin is the Gateway Science.
First it's evolution. Then comes plate tectonics and the Big-Bang. Then comes Athiesm. Then comes self-loathing and misanthropy, which leads to elitism and superiority complexes. The resulting social ostracization leads to homoeroticism and other perversions. The insatiable demand for money to fund extravagances coupled with the sloth that accompanies the welfare check creates a visceral hatred of capitalism. Finally, the abuser is no longer able to feel for his country and multiculturalism takes over. The transformation is complete.
I've seen it happen again and again."
Its great how this guy covers everything. Could he possibly be a more sterotypical neocon? I also find it interesting how he draws conections between nearly all the issues that they fight for.
The transformation (of this man into a living stereotype) is complete.
EDIT: Hey UK, they're coming for j00!
"Dawkins, you and your atheist friends cannot win. America WILL become a Christian Republic even if we have to write a whole new constitution. Millions of us are dedicated to this righteous cause. We will suceed. And then we will invade godless countries like "Great" Britain and kill all of your heathens. First we need to take care of things at home and in the Middle East but we will get around to Europe. You Godless freaks will die but then you will roast in hell for infinite time. Goodbye you loser"
-
Lol, yea, good luck getting rid of the good 99% of the US population that isn't a bunch of crazy fundies, bub :p
-
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."
Obviously someone has never been outside :)
-
Aagh! Fundie nerds! :shaking:
-
Given some of the nonsense I've seen posted in various religious debates both here and on other forums I don't know why anyone would bother given that there appears to be plenty of that sort of nonsense to go around.
Charismatic, I'd suggest leaving this thread ASAP. You're going to be pummeled and put into the same category as them. :p
Anyone who starts pummelling better watch out. If you want to argue on the facts that's fine though.
At the risk inherent in arguing with a mod on topics such as this:
Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.
Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief. For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.
-
Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief. For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.
So your saying it's okay for someone to belive that rape is okay, for example?
-
How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays? :rolleyes:
-
Given some of the nonsense I've seen posted in various religious debates both here and on other forums I don't know why anyone would bother given that there appears to be plenty of that sort of nonsense to go around.
Charismatic, I'd suggest leaving this thread ASAP. You're going to be pummeled and put into the same category as them. :p
Anyone who starts pummelling better watch out. If you want to argue on the facts that's fine though.
At the risk inherent in arguing with a mod on topics such as this:
Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.
Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief. For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.
Hold it! Posting the quote of reason on Hard Light is strictly illegal. Now your brain will turn to mush, which is not a bad thought considering this place. :p
Now on the arguing with a mod subject. I can do that, because that mod will have to deal with me on a mod project we work together on no matter what happens here..
-
How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays? :rolleyes:
Lesbian aren't gay tho. They are... uh... something else.
-
best one on the entire thread:
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=16447
"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"
-
"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares, and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."
--René Descartes, First Meditation
Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.
-
best one on the entire thread:
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=16447
"I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!"
I think thats more just the parental urge saying "My son wouldent be one to look at dirty magazines, it must not be him"
Homosexuality probably never crossed their mind. They always think if they raise their children in their perfect, religious image, there is no possiblility that they will be "seduced" by such "temptations". Admitting such a possibility would be admitting that her own parenting style is flawed. Trust me, I know mothers. :nod:
Not make her seem like she has common sense or anything. :lol:
-
"To-day, then, since I have opportunely freed my mind from all cares, and since I am in the secure possession of leisure in a peaceable retirement, I will at length apply myself earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all my former opinions."
--René Descartes, First Meditation
Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.
"I seek the cleansing sweep of milk like the raven of truth seeks the memory of all things"
At the risk inherent in arguing with a mod on topics such as this:
Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.
Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief. For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.
It does drive them to hatred here, though. Of - for example - aetheists, muslims, scientists, or homosexuals.
-
"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"
Would that big outside source of energy be something called "the sun" by any chance?
"[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]
This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god
if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state
Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this
god tests every one of us [emphasis added]"
Wow, did he do this hard hitting scientific data research.....in his ass?
"I AM here to be my husband's "personal maid" and to be "stuck in the house." I showed plenty of verses that showed that - the 31st chapter of Proverbs! Wives are to be a help meet for their husbands. I consider it a privilege to cook the meals, do the laundry, clean the house, rear the children, pick up clothes he may leave lying around, clean the kitchen counters after he makes a sandwich...... [...]
Yes, women have rights - the right to obey God's Word......."
I have nothing to say about this person.....
-
Now on the arguing with a mod subject. I can do that, because that mod will have to deal with me on a mod project we work together on no matter what happens here..
Doesn't mean I can't ask someone else to ban you on the sly. :p
Charismatic is conservative and believes it's morally wrong to be gay. The majority of Internet users I've seen are for some reason liberal-leaning. This whole topic is making fun of Fundamentalist Christians, a group which has right-leaning views. If you want to stop people from getting pummeled, you might as well close this topic before it turns into a political debate.
Political debates are fine as long as everyone keeps their heads and doesn't start flaming.
Also, I have no problem making fun of ignorant people, it's one of the greatest sources of comedy in existence, but making fun of someone's beliefs, what they choose to believe in and embrace, is something I personally do not do. For example, your quote from the page (I'm on thin ice here, aren't I) was someone's heartfelt belief.
I've actually made several quotes on this thread but I assume you're on about the cat anointing guy. To be honest while I find that whole story amusing the real comedy is not in the whole story with the cat but the last line where he says that the dog is next. Whether you believe or not that line is funny.
However as far as I understand Christianity the main difference between humans and animals is meant to be that we possess an immortal soul. So even if I am laughing at the cat anointing I'm still not having a go at Christianity. So as long as there is no one on the this board who believes that animals do have immortal souls that Jesus needs to save it shouldn't be a problem.
For example, I feel that people who think they can go ahead and talk about with confidence something they do not in anyway understand can be made fun of. I respect people's beliefs, however, because just because there is no evidence something is true does not mean it is not. If someone's belief gives meaning to their life, and acts as a spiritual compass, then I believe they should have it. In my (admittedly uninformed) mind, there are two kinds of philosophy, the kind that has been largely been replaced by modern science, and the kind which simply teaches and gives meaning to life. It is this type of philosophy that is so close to religion. As long as someone's beliefs do not lead them to hurt others, and do not drive them to hatred of other groups, they can believe.
And no one has said that they can't believe. Hell if my making a joke about how ridiculous a belief is can make you not believe it then it was never that strong a belief in the first place.
The simple fact is that everyone has the right to believe whatever they like. I respect peoples right to believe. That doesn't however mean that I have to respect the belief itself. If someone believes the Earth is flat I'm going to point out why that simply isn't true. If someone believes that rape is okay because the woman was asking for it I'm going to point out the flaws in that logic.
Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it sacrosanct.
-
So your saying it's okay for someone to belive that rape is okay, for example?
Sure thing.
But expressing this belief in any physical form isn't.
-
Language was just cooler back in the day. You could say "I'm going down to the store for some milk", and it would sound like the most profound thing ever, worthy of being quoted for all time to come.
I dunno, I think 20th century philosophy sometimes sounds more profound simply by virtue of its being totally impossible to read. Sure, Descartes can make you say, "Wow," but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"
-
but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"
Pff, I can get that on the internet any day of the week.....
-
but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"
Pff, I can get that on the internet any day of the week.....
As evidenced by the topic of this thread.
-
Please. Please tell me someone made all of those up on purpose.
Because if not, we're all screwed.
-
Sure, Descartes can make you say, "Wow," but Heidegger will make you say, "Jesus ****ing Christ what the ****?"
Someone's been reading too much Foucalt...
-
How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays? :rolleyes:
Who the hell doesn't like that? It's only natural..yas men are attracted to women and two women are more of an eye candy than one..no? ;7
But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.
-
How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays? :rolleyes:
Who the hell doesn't like that? It's only natural..yas men are attracted to women and two women are more of an eye candy than one..no? ;7
It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".
But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.
I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?
Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?
-
It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".
You realise I can like something that is bad for me, don't you? Or even something I feel is wrong.... so it really doesn't negate anything.
But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.
I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?
Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?
I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..
I'm not gonna turn this into a long discussion about homosexuality - suffice to say that we each belive what we do, and since there are no definite evidence going either way..it doesn't really matter what we belive..meh.
-
Someone's been reading too much Foucalt...
Haha! Actually my knowledge of Foucault is pretty woeful. As of yet, I've picked up most of what I know of him through organized discussions as opposed to direct reading.
-
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act.
:eek2: :shaking:
You almost gave me a heart attack!
I need my sugar! :nod:
-
It's hypocritical and instantly negates your argument that "gay is bad", because it shows that it's really just based on your preferences, not some higher power's "will".
You realise I can like something that is bad for me, don't you? Or even something I feel is wrong.... so it really doesn't negate anything.
It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though. It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.
But as far as I recall the Church doesn't teach that being born gay is evil, but that indulging in it is... which is a considerable difference.
I hate it when people use this, it's the dumbest thing possible. Oh, yea, you can be born gay, but you know, if you ACT gay then we hate you.
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act. What gives you the right to tell someone that they are wrong for what they're doing, as long as it's not hurting someone else?
Or are you one of those people who somehow believe someone being gay makes others gay too?
I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..
I'm not gonna turn this into a long discussion about homosexuality - suffice to say that we each belive what we do, and since there are no definite evidence going either way..it doesn't really matter what we belive..meh.
Evidence of what? I'm pretty sure there's comprehensive evidence that homosexual (or bisexual) people are human, and that they freely and informedly consent to sex with those of the same sexual orientation, so I'm not sure what more evidence is required.
-
I personally have as much right as everybody else I guess. What gives you the right to say X is right (which is the opposite of X is wrong)?
Note that I'm not useing the words "good" and "evil", since I for one don't belive that is evil, but hey.. for discussion sake..
That logic is actually a bit flawed. You know the principle "innocent until proven guilty"? Means that in order to be able to say "X is wrong" you have to have something against X. Saying that X is right doesn't specifically require any proof as to why it should be right. AS long as it's not "wrong", it's ok, right?
That means that those who judge should be the ones presenting arguments for the case "Why is X wrong". The question "Why shold X be right" should never be asked even. It is only asked by people who have deeply stuck opinions that X is wrong without the question.
It's one manifestation of Occam's Razor I suppose - simplest of two otherwise equal wins. Ergo acceptance is the standard and condemning is an exeption that requires some argumentation to be valid, otherwise it's just as valid as saying that moon is made of cheese. You can say so but it doesn't make it true until you send a Lunohod to get you a sample and you analyze it to prove that Moon is indeed made of cheese.
-
On the subject (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8)....
-
On the subject (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8)....
:rofl:
Best. Responce. Ever
-
That's like giving a person a bit of candy and telling them they can look at it, but if they eat it, then they're somehow committing some evil act.
Or like giving people a tree and saying they can't eat the fruit.....oh wait.
-
How much you wanna bet Charismatic likes Lesbian porn, but will still go on about the immorality of gays? :rolleyes:
Who the hell doesn't like that? It's only natural..yas men are attracted to women and two women are more of an eye candy than one..no? ;7
It's natural for a man to think: "Hey! Two potential mates! Let me see if I can get both of them to pleasure eachother, thereby cutting myself out of the equation, while I spill my own genetic makeup on the floor!" ?
-
On the subject (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA20dKc3kK8)....
George Takei is ****ing awesome.
-
It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though. It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.
ho·mo·phobe
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
Given that I neither hate them (Why the hell should I? I many not like what they are doing, but that's no reason for hate..Besides..it's not like they chose to be gay. They were born that way... wait a sec..why d othey call it a lifestyle choice then? :confused:) nor fear them (being gay is not contagious nor is there any physical danger from them) then your remark about my personality is totaly flawed.
Evidence of what? I'm pretty sure there's comprehensive evidence that homosexual (or bisexual) people are human, and that they freely and informedly consent to sex with those of the same sexual orientation, so I'm not sure what more evidence is required.
Did I ever say they weren't human?
Sure, homosexual behaviour isn't physicly harmfull and I bet most of them are nice pople, however I still think that it's just plain wrong (same way I think cursing or smoking is wrong) and not normal (not in the natural sense of natural, since a lot of freaky things go on in nature, including canibalism..brrr)
Oh, another thing...
The most vocal types of nutcase seem to be fundamentalist christians.
Maby..maby not.
Nitcases and fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, and contrary to popular belief, religious ones aren't necesarily the worst. You have your ideology nucases - (think nacism, communism, faschism, the commi-witchtunt in the US or even liberalism).
Humans can be fanatical and willing to kill over ANYTHING.
-
It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though. It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.
ho·mo·phobe
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
Given that I neither hate them (Why the hell should I? I many not like what they are doing, but that's no reason for hate..Besides..it's not like they chose to be gay. They were born that way... wait a sec..why d othey call it a lifestyle choice then? :confused:) nor fear them (being gay is not contagious nor is there any physical danger from them) then your remark about my personality is totaly flawed.
It's pretty obvious you hate their lifestyle (see below)
Evidence of what? I'm pretty sure there's comprehensive evidence that homosexual (or bisexual) people are human, and that they freely and informedly consent to sex with those of the same sexual orientation, so I'm not sure what more evidence is required.
Did I ever say they weren't human?
Sure, homosexual behaviour isn't physicly harmfull and I bet most of them are nice pople, however I still think that it's just plain wrong (same way I think cursing or smoking is wrong) and not normal (not in the natural sense of natural, since a lot of freaky things go on in nature, including canibalism..brrr)
So it's wrong in absolutely no rational way you can define. And you dislike it. Presumably you'd like to remove, abolish it - because why would you want keep something you dislike?
Ergo, hate; an irrational dislike of something you wish to remove.
More importantly, the only label worth noting is 'human'. If you accept homosexuals (or bisexuals) are human, then you have to accept their choice (and it's of no matter whether sexual orientation is genetic or environmental) to live in the way they live, or else you become hypocritical every time you make a choice about your life. The only factor that matters in whether something is right or wrong is harm; do homosexuals harm themselves, others, or even the species in any way?
(moreso, normality is itself an eye of the beholder type thing; the product of rather irrational human predilictions; plus, how do you qualify what is normal anyways?)
Oh, another thing...
The most vocal types of nutcase seem to be fundamentalist christians.
Maby..maby not.
Nitcases and fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, and contrary to popular belief, religious ones aren't necesarily the worst. You have your ideology nucases - (think nacism, communism, faschism, the commi-witchtunt in the US or even liberalism).
Humans can be fanatical and willing to kill over ANYTHING.
I'm not denying human stupidity, but it's hard to find a group both as large and as united in their lunacy as the religious fundamentalists, though.
-
It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though. It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.
ho·mo·phobe
It's pretty obvious you hate their lifestyle (see below)
Dislike is a more accurate word. If "something"fobia is defined by not supporting something or disliking it, then every single person in the world suffers from at least 1000 fobias...
Did I ever say they weren't human?
Sure, homosexual behaviour isn't physicly harmfull and I bet most of them are nice pople, however I still think that it's just plain wrong (same way I think cursing or smoking is wrong) and not normal (not in the natural sense of natural, since a lot of freaky things go on in nature, including canibalism..brrr)
So it's wrong in absolutely no rational way you can define. And you dislike it. Presumably you'd like to remove, abolish it - because why would you want keep something you dislike?
Ergo, hate; an irrational dislike of something you wish to remove.
Define rational and irrational. Define moral or immoral.
And there's the problem - wether you admit or not a human is not a fully rational beain and even agreeing on what is rational is very much impossible. You , I, everyone we probably sound perfectly rational to ourselves. The question is how do we sound to others.
For me the problem of homosexuality is that is simply isn't moral (yes, in my view) and that it's basicly a defect.. a non-harmfull one but still a defect.
Just tell me that you wouldn't like it more that your son/doughter is hetero than homo? (even a little)
Nitcases and fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, and contrary to popular belief, religious ones aren't necesarily the worst. You have your ideology nucases - (think nacism, communism, faschism, the commi-witchtunt in the US or even liberalism).
Humans can be fanatical and willing to kill over ANYTHING.
I'm not denying human stupidity, but it's hard to find a group both as large and as united in their lunacy as the religious fundamentalists, though.
I can think of a few that come close... :lol: (not refering to you...or am I?)
-
Here I go *takes breath*
It does show you to be more homophobic than rational, though. It's hypocritical - oh, sure, homosexuality is wrong.... unless you can have a swift wank watching it, in which case it's fine by you.
ho·mo·phobe
It's pretty obvious you hate their lifestyle (see below)
Dislike is a more accurate word. If "something"fobia is defined by not supporting something or disliking it, then every single person in the world suffers from at least 1000 fobias...
Did I ever say they weren't human?
Sure, homosexual behaviour isn't physicly harmfull and I bet most of them are nice pople, however I still think that it's just plain wrong (same way I think cursing or smoking is wrong) and not normal (not in the natural sense of natural, since a lot of freaky things go on in nature, including canibalism..brrr)
So it's wrong in absolutely no rational way you can define. And you dislike it. Presumably you'd like to remove, abolish it - because why would you want keep something you dislike?
Ergo, hate; an irrational dislike of something you wish to remove.
Define rational and irrational. Define moral or immoral.
Rational and Irrational are terms used to describe something's conformity to logic. If there is no logic connection between two things that are claimed to be connected, then the effect is irrationality. I think. Your "just plain wrong" argument does not stem from anything other than personal dislike, which as aldo points out, is hate.
Moral and Immoral are relative terms IMHO. They cannot be "defined" since their meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
And there's the problem - wether you admit or not a human is not a fully rational beain and even agreeing on what is rational is very much impossible. You , I, everyone we probably sound perfectly rational to ourselves. The question is how do we sound to others.
Morality is relative, logic is not. rationality is directly tied to logic, and logic does not change depending on one's perspective.
For me the problem of homosexuality is that is simply isn't moral (yes, in my view) and that it's basicly a defect.. a non-harmfull one but still a defect.
Just tell me that you wouldn't like it more that your son/doughter is hetero than homo? (even a little)
My mother, for one, is proud to have a homosexual son.
Nitcases and fanatics come in all shapes and sizes, and contrary to popular belief, religious ones aren't necesarily the worst. You have your ideology nucases - (think nacism, communism, faschism, the commi-witchtunt in the US or even liberalism).
Humans can be fanatical and willing to kill over ANYTHING.
I'm not denying human stupidity, but it's hard to find a group both as large and as united in their lunacy as the religious fundamentalists, though.
I can think of a few that come close... :lol: (not refering to you...or am I?)
Hmmm... Lunacy. Kaz*cough* :lol:
(If you're reading this, know that I say this because I think you're awesome Kaz. :))
-
Logical connection comes from having the right premisess, making the right assumptions and getting the right conclusions.
-----
People don't generaly have the same premises, and what is logical is also partially subjectable to debate in many cases. This is not math after all.
-----
And dislike does not equal hate. Or maby it does for you?
---
Blood is blood. I would be probably be proud of my son/daughter regardless if it was gay or not. That was not the question I asked.
And we all like Kaz.... :lol:
-
Just tell me that you wouldn't like it more that your son/doughter is hetero than homo? (even a little)
Only in the fact that I'd love grandchildren to spoil (Though advances in Reproductive "Assistance" make even this possible for Homosexuals as well as Heterosexuals). However, since I'm not likely to ever get a chance to have kids, this is a moot point. :nod:
-
However, since I'm not likely to ever get a chance to have kids, this is a moot point. :nod:
Why's that? Sterility caused by prolonged proximity to high-scale nuclear weapons testing? Lose your genitals in an unfortunate smelting accident? Just plain ugly? Tell me if i'm getting warmer...
-
Dislike is a more accurate word. If "something"fobia is defined by not supporting something or disliking it, then every single person in the world suffers from at least 1000 fobias...
You think it's immoral. You you don't really mind immorality, then? It's not too bad?
In any case;
homophobia
# prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality
I'd say calling someone morally wrong 'just because' is prejudice.
So it's wrong in absolutely no rational way you can define. And you dislike it. Presumably you'd like to remove, abolish it - because why would you want keep something you dislike?
Ergo, hate; an irrational dislike of something you wish to remove.
Define rational and irrational. Define moral or immoral.
And there's the problem - wether you admit or not a human is not a fully rational beain and even agreeing on what is rational is very much impossible. You , I, everyone we probably sound perfectly rational to ourselves. The question is how do we sound to others.[/quote]
Actually, rational is very easy to define. You need some form of reasoning beyond going 'ohmygodohmygod it's wrong!' and running around waving your hands in the air.
rational
# consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"
# intellectual: of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"
# having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"
irrational
# not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
(I'd say say something without any concrete or intellectual reasoning is irrational)
As for moral; well, it may be a societal and personal choice, but your espousing of morality becomes a lot stronger and a lot more convincing if it has some form of basic logic or common sense to it. That's how we distinguish between the people calling slavery moral (for example) and immoral - the logical reasoning for each view.
For me the problem of homosexuality is that is simply isn't moral (yes, in my view) and that it's basicly a defect.. a non-harmfull one but still a defect.
Just tell me that you wouldn't like it more that your son/doughter is hetero than homo? (even a little)
I wouldn't have any objection to whatever choice he/she make (for the sake of argument assuming it's not genetic and environmental/upbringing, I'd support them as a parent should support their children.
To me, bigotry against a group based on their (consensual of course) sexual activity is immoral.
And what the hell is a 'non harmful defect'? Hell, my short-sightedness is a 'defect', and it's a hell of a lot more harmful than homosexuality; so why isn't that morally wrong? (or, in personality terms, I'm an introverted type personality - is that morally wrong? it's certainly a 'non harmful defect', whatever the **** that means)
I'm not denying human stupidity, but it's hard to find a group both as large and as united in their lunacy as the religious fundamentalists, though.
I can think of a few that come close... :lol: (not refering to you...or am I?)
If you are, then I believe there would be a common - shall we say normal - consensus that you are an idiot. But I'm sure you're not referring to me, because it'd be rather unjustifiable.
I'm curious why you take such offense to the concept; do you consider yourself a religious fundamentalist? (perhaps because you share some of the more odious views?)
-
Logical connection comes from having the right premisess, making the right assumptions and getting the right conclusions.
-----
k
People don't generaly have the same premises, and what is logical is also partially subjectable to debate in many cases. This is not math after all.
-----
There are a certain set of premises that can support any given logical conclusion. Logic as a system itself is not really "debatabe", it has rules and fallacies and whatnot that apply in any situation.
And dislike does not equal hate. Or maby it does for you?
No it does not, but irrational dislike does. That was kind of the point.
---
Blood is blood. I would be probably be proud of my son/daughter regardless if it was gay or not. That was not the question I asked.
Well in order to be proud of something in my book, especially a person, they must be doing whatever i like best, or something equivalent. (thats how its used in our family) The point is that many parents consider heterosexuality & homosexuality to be equal in preference, and not a defect. That said, "proud" is a word I don't use very often.
And we all like Kaz.... :lol:
-
Good times....good times.
edit: I think that if Kazan were still around, he would literally implode with rage, forming smaller, denser White Dwarf Kazan.
i believe the concept you are looking for is "Supernova"
-
Good times....good times.
edit: I think that if Kazan were still around, he would literally implode with rage, forming smaller, denser White Dwarf Kazan.
i believe the concept you are looking for is "Supernova"
Nah, he'd be against that,
Super would be a fascist word, and nova is a star that increases in output for a while then fades back to normal, he'd think you are calling him a hothead, so in-turn you'd be a fascist. :p
-
Nah, he'd be against that,
Super would be a fascist word, and nova is a star that increases in output for a while then fades back to normal, he'd think you are calling him a hothead, so in-turn you'd be a fascist. :p
from the amount of time i lurked here before registering and just read... i think i have a fairly good impression of our exciteable and absent forumite.. and i don't understand how the word "super" would be "a fascist word", that doesn't sound like something he would say.
he seems to appropriately apply the term fascist to a form of totalitarian government in which corporate power is combined with government power
-
Nah, he'd be against that,
Super would be a fascist word, and nova is a star that increases in output for a while then fades back to normal, he'd think you are calling him a hothead, so in-turn you'd be a fascist. :p
from the amount of time i lurked here before registering and just read... i think i have a fairly good impression of our exciteable and absent forumite.. and i don't understand how the word "super" would be "a fascist word", that doesn't sound like something he would say.
he seems to appropriately apply the term fascist to a form of totalitarian government in which corporate power is combined with government power
Then apparently, you haven't been around long enough. :p
-
The only time I've seen anyone as militant as Kazan in his beliefs was at one of the large fundi churches we have on the outskirts of the Denver Metro area.
-
Can we stop with the comments about Kazan. Monkey'd or not he's still a member of the board.
-
There are a certain set of premises that can support any given logical conclusion. Logic as a system itself is not really "debatabe", it has rules and fallacies and whatnot that apply in any situation.[/color]
In general yes. But to come to correct xonclusion you have to have perfect and complete knowledge.which in general we have not. And let's not forget that many thing as difficult to categorize or enumerate...
People often don't agree on what is rational..even in simple thing like Chess (was that a rational move? It was for me since I know what I'll do next, I have some plan. For you it seems stupid since oyu have your own plan and ideas to defeat me. But then Kasparov comes, laugss at both of our sorry asses and defets us in 3 turns...
No it does not, but irrational dislike does. That was kind of the point.
No, "irrational" dislike is just irational dislike..nothing more, nothing less. It can't be hate since you have rational and irrational hate...and that would mean that irrational hate is irrational irrational dislike??? Or rational hate is rational irrational dislike?
-
People often don't agree on what is rational..even in simple thing like Chess (was that a rational move? It was for me since I know what I'll do next, I have some plan. For you it seems stupid since oyu have your own plan and ideas to defeat me. But then Kasparov comes, laugss at both of our sorry asses and defets us in 3 turns...
Rational is rational, if you are beaten you either made mistakes, didn't follow your plan accordingly or your so called "rational moves" weren't "rational" at all.
For example, you may call a mate threat you just made a "rational move", but if you get mated on your next one, it's not exactly "rational". Kasparov is not omniscient (despite all the evidence), so your point is irrelevant. What you are confused about is that in chess most people (for discussion's sake, non-GMs) can't evaluate a position correctly. If you try to apply chess to politics (Kasparov again comes to mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_2008)) you would have to say most people can't evaluate a candidate correctly, which most people find borderline non-democratic (although it has it's hints of truth).