slapnose.com

Well, I think it's a more outrageous story to those who practice Wicca as their religion of choice.

But I have to agree with you, the judge is an idiot, and I don't think it'll withstand a constitutional challenge either.

And somebody still has to pay the lawyers and whatnot to go through the motions & get the ruling overturned.

Well, yeah.. certainly it's a waste of time and money, but as an example of the ruining of our nation, it's minor. It's outrageous to everyone, but in a broader sense, not really much of a big deal.

My point was just that people sometimes have a tendency to go overboard when something like this happens. Sometimes these things are a big deal, like when they're putting anti-evolution stickers in kids' textbooks. Sometimes they're less of a true threat.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp

Apropos of nothing, perhaps, but on this topic I thought you may be interested in the storm the Republicans are about to raise with the is it/isn't it question concerning various religious differences. Like Catholics, Mormons are one of those groups of people you can still get away with ridiculing in today's America.

Mormons are people too.

Oh come on, Fritz.

First, you can get away with ridiculing anyone you damn well please in this country, that's ... waddayacallit ... FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

There is a slight (read: huge) difference between ridicule and courts prohibiting certain religious teachings.

Personally, I think just about all religions are complete bullshit, but I would never support banning them. Mormonism is an interesting case because it's entire history is known to us and well-documented, so the contradictions and fallacies are much easier to spot. Still, I don't find it fundamentally any more absurd than any other religion. It's all crap to me, buddy.

"Personally, I think just about all religions are complete bullshit…"

Now, does this position have normative weight, such that intelligent people should take it seriously, or is it just your own, bigoted attitude stemming from a complete, willful ignorance of religious teaching and intolerance of those who are different and don’t think as you do?

Freedom is not about license; freedom is about responsibility.

No, kiddo, it's what is referred to as an "opinion." I do not subscribe to any religion. I do not accept nor believe their teachings. In other words, I think they're bullshit. "Intelligent" people, if there are any, can take it any way they like.

Again with the bigoted. This opinion is bigoted in exactly the same sense that all opinions are bigoted. It is my opinion, based on my thoughts and feelings. It is based on my knowledge of said religions, which is naturally not complete. It implies no intolerance, it only states a point of view. I do not hold that others should be restricted from believe in, practicing, or abiding by that which I deem bullshit. That would be intolerance. Stating that I do not agree is not intolerance.

Your inane platitude about what freedom is "about" warrants no response.

Is it intolerant to ridicule and critique something which you have made absolutely no attempt to understand, let alone come to a complete understanding of? Or just intellectually lazy?

My goodness.

No, it isn't intolerant. It may be ignorant, but it's not intolerant. Look it up.

Furthermore, you make this weird assumption that I have made "absolutely no attempt to understand" religion. This is false. Where do you get this idea? I know plenty about religion, though I would never claim to be an expert. Is my opinion invalid because I'm not a believer? Is it your position that one who does not believe in god must therefore have made "absolutely no attempt to understand" religion? Are you serious?

Naturally I don't have a "complete understanding" of religion, and neither do you. I don't believe in "complete understanding" myself, particularly of something as slippery as religion.

Hmm. Is it intolerant for Fritz to ridicule and critique something which Fritz has made absolutely no attempt to understand? Like Anthony's opinions? Or is that just idiocy?

We would need normative standards to find out, wouldn't we, WSH?

Only if we are simple-minded and insist on phony absolutes. For the rest of us, it's as easy as forming an opinion, like: Fritz is an arrogant asshole.

Ha! Even if there is nothing else to say you can still call people names.

Still sounds like an appeal to a standard, given that "arrogant asshole" is a value judgement.

Fritz strikes me more as a pot roast than an arrogant asshole. Or maybe a corn-on-the-cob. Alarm clock, perhaps.

Fritz strikes me as a not-very-smart person who has read a lot of books. But again, it's a subjective thing. I'm sure he thinks he's fabulous.

As for names. . . names are important. It is important that we know what things are. Or anyway, what we think they are. It provides reassurance when they pretend to be something else.

Nice appeal to ridicule, WSH. A bit shrill and overly pointed for my taste, but I can see where you might think it clever. I find your general habit of default to ad hominem highly amusing.

I hope that you and Anthony someday will grow up and realize that the category "people who disagree with me" is not equal to or contained within the category "people who are not very smart." Though, I suppose, they may at some point overlap. Of course, the categories “people who agree with me” and “people who are not very smart” overlap as well. Sometimes, a little humility can go a long way.

Oh, okay. Asshole.

To elaborate a little on WSH's point...

Fritz, you lecturing anyone on humility is truly priceless.

Are you really so dense that you don't realize that the phrase "I hope that you and Anthony someday will grow up and realize..." is just as much an ad hominem attack as calling someone an asshole? It's worse, actually, because it's a personal attack that attempts to disguise itself. So it's not only invalid, it's dishonest.

Your assertion that I label those who disagree with me as stupid is the exact kind of crap argument you're always bitching about. It's a classic strawman. When your relevant points are refuted and your unfounded suppositions about my background and knowledge have been roundly debunked, you retreat to calling me intolerant of opposing viewpoints and accusing me of labeling all those who disagree with me stupid. Look in the mirror, champ. It's you who is intolerant.

Now, excuse me for excessively belaboring the point, but are you saying that we have access to normative standards for judging arguments? Can we tell with certainty, perhaps even in absolute terms, the difference between a good argument and a bad argument? Just wondering.

Now, is my observation that you and WSH should grow up less or more dishonest and invalid than WSH's observation that I appear to be a not-very-smart-person who has read a lot of books and your observation that I am intolerant and ought not to ever lecture anyone on humility? Why or why not?

First paragraph: I will not excuse you. This is tiresome semantic bullshit. I thought you didn't like nihilism.

Second: I do not speak for WSH. My observation that you are intolerant, though, was based on the specific arguments you have made, which show intolerance. I didn't say you "ought not to ever lecture anyone on humility," I said it was "priceless," meaning I find it ironic because your tone is generally extremely arrogant and anything but humble. You should really watch the misquoting there, you do it a lot.

These two are different than telling someone to "grow up" in that one is pejorative and has no basis or purpose other than to unfairly diminish someone's position, and the others are specific observations based on specific and explicitly illustrated experience.

Once again, you fail to address the substance of any argument, instead retreating to your damn high school essay questions. Why or why not?

My observation that you tend to label those you disagree with as stupid or crazy or complete bullshit is based on specific arguments and observations you have made. There's plenty of evidence for that on this site.

In the following quote you completely discount all religious belief: "Sttill, I don't find it fundamentally any more absurd than any other religion. It's all crap to me, buddy." What's your opinion of those who believe some of that "crap"? Can I correctly draw any inference from your opinion of religion to your opinion of those who hold religious beliefs?

You've made a judgement. Does that judgement have normative weight? Is there any reason anyone ought to take it seriously? Do you think that your opinion of religion, if you were to provide the supporting argumentation, should have the power to convince? Is there any reason that anyone ought to believe as you do?

By the way, your comments won't allow me to include my URL, even in the line provided on the comment form. Is it something wrong with my side or something you are doing on your end?

Can you draw any inferences? Sure. You can infer that I disagree with those people. That doesn't mean I think they're stupid or crazy.

In fact, you've misquoted me again. I don't discount religious belief, I simply state that I don't have any.

I think my opinion of religion does have the power to convince, if the debate were a rational one, which it is not since it concerns religion. Religious faith is not rational.

Your opinion of religion has no more power to convince. If I don't believe in god, you're not going to be able to mount some logical argument that will make be a believer. Applying all your little rules to religion is simply useless.

I feel pretty safe in saying that there is something wrong with your side, yes, but I don't know why you'd have trouble with the URL form in the comments. What do you mean it won't let you include it? You can't type in that field?

Slapnose Merchandise! At last!