Church group to protest funeral

Henry Plainview wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Pnoom! wrote: While I agree in the case of Fred Phelps, who is little more than a nuisance, does your statement, which implies a complete absence of exceptions, include, say, Hitler?  Or, to use a more relevant, still living, example, Osama bin Laden? GODWIN'S LAW WOOHOO! Yes, I would include them. Celebrate that they have been brought to justice, and celebrate that they can't hurt anyone else, but celebrating their death crosses the line, no matter how much of a monster they were. Now, emotionally it's hard to avoid being happy when Stalin, Hilter, Pol Pot, etc. die, and I understand that. But I still find it hard to justify, and it's impossible to justify once you cross out of mass murderer territory. First off, stop being overly aggressive, it's a surefire way to get this thread closed and end what could be useful discussion (and has been so far). Second, I think you misused Godwin's Law, since this wasn't really a Hitler analogy at all.  It was a valid example designed to probe the extent to which you applied your statement. Third, dealing with what you actually said now, I actually agree. Godwin's law applies to any mention of Hilter, I think. :P But otherwise I agree with you again. <3 It's probably because we both like Zorn--great minds think alike. <3

Probably about the Zorn.

Anyway, re Godwin's law, here's what wikipedia has to say:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:[2][3] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

So, while Godwin's Law itself is applicable, the implications of bringing it up don't exactly fit my example.

:D

Henry Plainview wrote: The T wrote: Fanatism is on its way out. And so, thank God, is religion. It will take years, decades, centuries. I'll not be here. But one day religion will be but a bad memory for the human race. For religion carries the seed of fanatism. Fanatism carries the seed of hate. Hate, on the other hand, has never had such a good ally in history as religion.   Surely, there are great people who are religious.  I respect them. But there's still a label there. One day there will be NO labels. And at least ONE reason for humankind's division will dissappear. Haha, no, I'm sorry Mr. Secular Humanist, but religion is never going to die and your utopia will never be realized. For one, because it's a utopia and is therefore impossible. One world one love is hippie nonsense, even though it would be very nice if it were true. There is much debate whether or not religion is making a "comeback", but it's obvious that your mind-viruses are hear to stay. Science will never be able to explain everything.

WARNING:  STRAW MAN ALERT!

A world without religion is no more a utopia than a world with.  Read his post again before you tell him he's speaking nonsense.

And the science vs. religion is just completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong).  By definition science can explain everything (if God exists, he/she/it is a part of science).  What you meant to say, I'm sure, is that scientists can't explain everything, since obviously they can't.  However, they can explain quite a lot, and the more they can explain, the smaller a "leap of faith" (to use the term so often bandied about by creationists regarding the more specific topic of evolution) it is to trust that conventional scientific theories are correct and that religion is not (or, presumably, that Religion is if science someday starts supporting that).

lol aggressive moralism itt and elsewhere

these people just abuse free speech as a shield in that if anyone tries to stop their protest they can attempt to sue for suppression or somesuch.

edit: I mean that this is their primary intent - to make money from suing people who stand in their way.

Edited by laplace - August 07 2008 at 14:12

Henry Plainview wrote: stonebeard wrote: John Lennon..................deadMLK..................................deadFred Phelps....................alivewhen will somebody kill this motherf**ker? You're not helping. Celebrating anyone's death makes you an asshole, even if the person who died was an asshole.

While I agree in the case of Fred Phelps, who is little more than a nuisance, does your statement, which implies a complete absence of exceptions, include, say, Hitler?  Or, to use a more relevant, still living, example, Osama bin Laden?

Henry Plainview wrote: Yeah, we've all heard about WBC, and we're all already outraged, blah blah blah stonebeard wrote: John Lennon..................deadMLK..................................deadFred Phelps....................alivewhen will somebody kill this motherf**ker? You're not helping. Celebrating anyone's death makes you an asshole, even if the person who died was an asshole.

Yeah, we've all heard about WBC, and we're all already outraged, blah blah blah

stonebeard wrote: John Lennon..................deadMLK..................................deadFred Phelps....................alivewhen will somebody kill this motherf**ker?

You're not helping. Celebrating anyone's death makes you an asshole, even if the person who died was an asshole.

Pnoom! wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: This acts were declared illegal in several USA states, Canada should make the  same thing, this bigots deserve no respect.   Something has to be done to stop this fanatics, according to WBC God hates everybody except them, it's time to stop abuse of Freedom of Speech by this animals (with the pardon of animals).   Iván I completely disagree.  Not only does it make them martyrs to their supporters, it suggests that the government's job is to protect the feelings of its citizens.  While that arguably works on places like progarchives, in real life, where there are far greater consequences, it gives the government too much power to censor what it doesn't like, however well-meaning its intentions. A far better response would be to simply stop paying them any attentions.  It works with kids pulling attention stunts, and it will work with these overgrown babies as well.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: This acts were declared illegal in several USA states, Canada should make the  same thing, this bigots deserve no respect.   Something has to be done to stop this fanatics, according to WBC God hates everybody except them, it's time to stop abuse of Freedom of Speech by this animals (with the pardon of animals).   Iván

I completely disagree.  Not only does it make them martyrs to their supporters, it suggests that the government's job is to protect the feelings of its citizens.  While that arguably works on places like progarchives, in real life, where there are far greater consequences, it gives the government too much power to censor what it doesn't like, however well-meaning its intentions.

A far better response would be to simply stop paying them any attentions.  It works with kids pulling attention stunts, and it will work with these overgrown babies as well.