| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
19 Nov 2006 09:16:26 PM |
| Object: |
Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice. More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
BTW, did anyone notice how Rios was a little awkward in trying to brag on
her son being in theological school. I wish Maher had said, "So I
suppose what you're trying to tell us is that your son is GAY." I mean
come on, the gaydar was chirping pretty loud when she started describing
her theology student son. That boy probably likes ***** more than his old
lady.
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve". But
actually his original point was still borne out. What Rios is doing is
coming up to people who have already gorged themselves on good food and
insisting that they are hungry and just don't know it. She then demand
that they puke up the t-bone steaks they've just eaten and substitute it
with mystery meat.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 12:18:04 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
That was cool. She sounded like a Faux News reporter.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice.
I think that humans have a right to self preservation and that's all
these guys did.
More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
Good point. I wish Maher had brought that one up.
BTW, did anyone notice how Rios was a little awkward in trying to brag on
her son being in theological school. I wish Maher had said, "So I
suppose what you're trying to tell us is that your son is GAY." I mean
come on, the gaydar was chirping pretty loud when she started describing
her theology student son. That boy probably likes ***** more than his old
lady.
LOL!
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve". But
actually his original point was still borne out. What Rios is doing is
coming up to people who have already gorged themselves on good food and
insisting that they are hungry and just don't know it. She then demand
that they puke up the t-bone steaks they've just eaten and substitute it
with mystery meat.
Why do xtians think that everybody wants to drink their Koolaid? She
sounded like one of those who believes that everyone wants to 'come to
Jesus' whether we know it or not.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 09:00:14 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters.
I sort of agree with you, but I can see that she was trying to say
that is wrong for a Christian to do that. Whether or not it is
criticism is not really a big point.
Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice. More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
That was my reaction.
BTW, did anyone notice how Rios was a little awkward in trying to brag on
her son being in theological school. I wish Maher had said, "So I
suppose what you're trying to tell us is that your son is GAY." I mean
come on, the gaydar was chirping pretty loud when she started describing
her theology student son.
When was that? Somehow I missed it.
That boy probably likes ***** more than his old
lady.
I think you are reading lots and lots into something.
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve". But
actually his original point was still borne out. What Rios is doing is
coming up to people who have already gorged themselves on good food and
insisting that they are hungry and just don't know it. She then demand
that they puke up the t-bone steaks they've just eaten and substitute it
with mystery meat.
I watched the video expecting Rios to look like a fool and for Maher
to slam her down. Instead I saw someone present a reasonable (not
reasoned) position and someone else present a contrary view. I did not
see any smack down at all. You agreed with one side, that is all.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 09:48:55 AM |
|
|
In article <6gg3m2dirb5og805l887o4jglv41dvnlb5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters.
I sort of agree with you, but I can see that she was trying to say
that is wrong for a Christian to do that.
Yes, and I suppose it would be wrong to lie to axe murderer if he asks if
you know the whereabouts of someone he wishes to hack to pieces.
BTW, did anyone notice how Rios was a little awkward in trying to brag on
her son being in theological school. I wish Maher had said, "So I
suppose what you're trying to tell us is that your son is GAY." I mean
come on, the gaydar was chirping pretty loud when she started describing
her theology student son.
When was that? Somehow I missed it.
You missed the part where she said he son was a graduate student at a
theological school in Canada?
That boy probably likes ***** more than his old
lady.
I think you are reading lots and lots into something.
As usual, matty boy, I'm afraid I have to remind you that this was a
*joke*.
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve". But
actually his original point was still borne out. What Rios is doing is
coming up to people who have already gorged themselves on good food and
insisting that they are hungry and just don't know it. She then demand
that they puke up the t-bone steaks they've just eaten and substitute it
with mystery meat.
I watched the video expecting Rios to look like a fool and for Maher
to slam her down. Instead I saw someone present a reasonable (not
reasoned) position and someone else present a contrary view. I did not
see any smack down at all.
It wasn't an overt smack down, but he did point out her condescension and
her ridiculous view that xians should die, rather than lie. Granted, it
would get rid of a few really dumb christers, but it still wouldn't be in
their own best interests to listen to her. On second thought, if they
want to listen to her, be my guest.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 11:23:39 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:48:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcb7c56931c2b64989774@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <6gg3m2dirb5og805l887o4jglv41dvnlb5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters.
I sort of agree with you, but I can see that she was trying to say
that is wrong for a Christian to do that.
Yes, and I suppose it would be wrong to lie to axe murderer if he asks if
you know the whereabouts of someone he wishes to hack to pieces.
It has been argued so by several philosophers (Kant, in particular
IIANM). You don't have an obligation to tell, but plenty of people
make the claim that it is always wrong to lie. Understand this is a
*larger* claim than Rios who only asserts it is wrong to deny Christ,
not that lies are always forbidden. I am not defending the position, I
disagree with it, but it is not nonsense and it is not solely
Christian or theist.
BTW, did anyone notice how Rios was a little awkward in trying to brag on
her son being in theological school. I wish Maher had said, "So I
suppose what you're trying to tell us is that your son is GAY." I mean
come on, the gaydar was chirping pretty loud when she started describing
her theology student son.
When was that? Somehow I missed it.
You missed the part where she said he son was a graduate student at a
theological school in Canada?
I guess so. I just re-watched and caught it. It missed it the first
time because it does not relate to anything.
That boy probably likes ***** more than his old
lady.
I think you are reading lots and lots into something.
As usual, matty boy, I'm afraid I have to remind you that this was a
*joke*.
The whole gay claim? That was a joke? If you say so, but I have no
idea why you would make such a joke.
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve". But
actually his original point was still borne out. What Rios is doing is
coming up to people who have already gorged themselves on good food and
insisting that they are hungry and just don't know it. She then demand
that they puke up the t-bone steaks they've just eaten and substitute it
with mystery meat.
I watched the video expecting Rios to look like a fool and for Maher
to slam her down. Instead I saw someone present a reasonable (not
reasoned) position and someone else present a contrary view. I did not
see any smack down at all.
It wasn't an overt smack down, but he did point out her condescension and
her ridiculous view that xians should die, rather than lie. Granted, it
would get rid of a few really dumb christers, but it still wouldn't be in
their own best interests to listen to her. On second thought, if they
want to listen to her, be my guest.
So it was not a smack down, it was an open exchange of ideas where
both sides presented their positions.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 01:32:13 PM |
|
|
In article <lpo3m2d69shq6tbbn5n1r74h6q0cc5hlc5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:48:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcb7c56931c2b64989774@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <6gg3m2dirb5og805l887o4jglv41dvnlb5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters.
I sort of agree with you, but I can see that she was trying to say
that is wrong for a Christian to do that.
Yes, and I suppose it would be wrong to lie to axe murderer if he asks if
you know the whereabouts of someone he wishes to hack to pieces.
It has been argued so by several philosophers (Kant, in particular
IIANM).
I brought it up because it was the example used against Kant. Note that
Kant actually maintained that it would still be wrong to lie, either to
save your life or anyone else's.
You don't have an obligation to tell, but plenty of people
make the claim that it is always wrong to lie.
Yep, Kant, in particular. Of course he was utterly unconvincing, wasn't
he.
Understand this is a
*larger* claim than Rios who only asserts it is wrong to deny Christ,
not that lies are always forbidden.
Well, naturally I don't agree with that in particular. But I'm not
convinced that one is legitimately denying him when one is blackmailed.
Just like we wouldn't honor a contract signed under duress, we wouldn't
take a denial of Jesus under duress to represent the authentic beliefs of
the individual.
I am not defending the position, I
disagree with it, but it is not nonsense and it is not solely
Christian or theist.
The question might not be nonsense, but her conclusion is based upon non
sequiturs and other assorted, nonsensical arguments by assertion. She
hasn't shown that there is anything wrong with either lying about one's
beliefs or even converting to islam and then converting back to xianity.
As usual, matty boy, I'm afraid I have to remind you that this was a
*joke*.
The whole gay claim? That was a joke?
'Fraid so.
If you say so, but I have no
idea why you would make such a joke.
ummmm.....because it was funny ;) You do realize that Maher is a
comedian, don't you?
So it was not a smack down, it was an open exchange of ideas where
both sides presented their positions.
Her side is not the one that came out looking the most reasonable or
respectable. Instead, she came across as a condescending ***** who
demanded that others sacrifice their lives from the safety of her
newspaper column.
As to the substance of her argument, that too was garbage. Saying that
they gave their legitimate consent to become muslims would be like a
mugger claiming that you gave him your wallet of your own free will, when
he pointed a gun at you. On pretty much any other subject, people would
agree that consent was not really given. It's only when it comes to
religious superstition that people like Rios start acting like idiots
about it.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 02:02:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:32:13 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcbb0ab8326a30f989775@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <lpo3m2d69shq6tbbn5n1r74h6q0cc5hlc5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:48:55 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcb7c56931c2b64989774@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
In article <6gg3m2dirb5og805l887o4jglv41dvnlb5@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , quibbler
<quibbler247@yahoo.com> in
<MPG.1fcacbec8e6ce5dc98976f@news.readfreenews.net> wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters.
I sort of agree with you, but I can see that she was trying to say
that is wrong for a Christian to do that.
Yes, and I suppose it would be wrong to lie to axe murderer if he asks if
you know the whereabouts of someone he wishes to hack to pieces.
It has been argued so by several philosophers (Kant, in particular
IIANM).
I brought it up because it was the example used against Kant. Note that
Kant actually maintained that it would still be wrong to lie, either to
save your life or anyone else's.
Yep. We can disagree (I do and so, apparently, do you), but it is a
solid non-religion position.
You don't have an obligation to tell, but plenty of people
make the claim that it is always wrong to lie.
Yep, Kant, in particular. Of course he was utterly unconvincing, wasn't
he.
To me, yep. I don't present him as an authority for you to agree with,
just as a respected person. He is wrong here, but he is not silly.
Understand this is a
*larger* claim than Rios who only asserts it is wrong to deny Christ,
not that lies are always forbidden.
Well, naturally I don't agree with that in particular.
I am not suggesting you do, just that she is presenting some, to my
mind at least, less wrong than Kant did.
But I'm not
convinced that one is legitimately denying him when one is blackmailed.
Now that is a legitimate theological point.
Just like we wouldn't honor a contract signed under duress, we wouldn't
take a denial of Jesus under duress to represent the authentic beliefs of
the individual.
I am not defending the position, I
disagree with it, but it is not nonsense and it is not solely
Christian or theist.
The question might not be nonsense, but her conclusion is based upon non
sequiturs and other assorted, nonsensical arguments by assertion.
Not the one she presented. In that video she was not unreasonable at
all.
She
hasn't shown that there is anything wrong with either lying about one's
beliefs or even converting to islam and then converting back to xianity.
I agree, she does not present a full argument for her claim. But it
was TV, that anything remotely sensible was stated is impressive. That
they stayed on topic and presented coherent thoughts more than two
sentences long impressed me.
As usual, matty boy, I'm afraid I have to remind you that this was a
*joke*.
The whole gay claim? That was a joke?
'Fraid so.
Sigh. At least one of us needs help.
If you say so, but I have no
idea why you would make such a joke.
ummmm.....because it was funny ;) You do realize that Maher is a
comedian, don't you?
To paraphrase (and, well, lie) I know Maher, Maher is my friend, you,
sir, are no Maher.
BTW, have you seen _Borat_? I could not breath I laughed so hard. I
had to cover my eyes because if I saw another joke I was going to die.
So it was not a smack down, it was an open exchange of ideas where
both sides presented their positions.
Her side is not the one that came out looking the most reasonable or
respectable.
I guess I set the bar low and the subject set it lower.
Instead, she came across as a condescending ***** who
demanded that others sacrifice their lives from the safety of her
newspaper column.
I think you are reading a bit into the video. I don't know her and I
bet she is a condescending nasty person, but not from that video.
As to the substance of her argument, that too was garbage. Saying that
they gave their legitimate consent to become muslims would be like a
mugger claiming that you gave him your wallet of your own free will, when
he pointed a gun at you. On pretty much any other subject, people would
agree that consent was not really given. It's only when it comes to
religious superstition that people like Rios start acting like idiots
about it.
Never said I agreed with her. And I don't.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 10:05:14 PM |
|
|
In article <9124m2hraleevuefg604lolqc4jjr3g90o@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
Yep. We can disagree (I do and so, apparently, do you), but it is a
solid non-religion position.
What's *solid* is that pretty much every serious thinker has gravitated
into the opposite camp. If course, her point is not based upon
philosophy but her own naive misunderstanding of her religion.
You don't have an obligation to tell, but plenty of people
make the claim that it is always wrong to lie.
Yep, Kant, in particular. Of course he was utterly unconvincing, wasn't
he.
To me, yep. I don't present him as an authority for you to agree with,
just as a respected person. He is wrong here, but he is not silly.
Not intentionally, in the case of his philosophy anyway. His personal
life was another matter.
Understand this is a
*larger* claim than Rios who only asserts it is wrong to deny Christ,
not that lies are always forbidden.
Well, naturally I don't agree with that in particular.
I am not suggesting you do, just that she is presenting some, to my
mind at least, less wrong than Kant did.
I don't see why it's less silly. She is demanding that all xians must
die, rather than renounce faith. While that would help us dispose of a
lot of xians, it is still profoundly silly advice. Even Jebus himself
played games to try to weasel out of being killed.
But I'm not
convinced that one is legitimately denying him when one is blackmailed.
Now that is a legitimate theological point.
Whereas hers is not.
Just like we wouldn't honor a contract signed under duress, we wouldn't
take a denial of Jesus under duress to represent the authentic beliefs of
the individual.
I am not defending the position, I
disagree with it, but it is not nonsense and it is not solely
Christian or theist.
The question might not be nonsense, but her conclusion is based upon non
sequiturs and other assorted, nonsensical arguments by assertion.
Not the one she presented. In that video she was not unreasonable at
all.
Sure she was. Despite her attempts at spin and damage control. They
quite unreasonably was suggesting that people needed to effectively
commit suicide, by refusing to deny jesus. Perhaps she hopes that jebus
will give them some extra martyr points in heaven, but that's not
something based upon reason.
'Fraid so.
Sigh. At least one of us needs help.
Yep, we're gonna need to surgically implant a sense of humor into you.
If you say so, but I have no
idea why you would make such a joke.
ummmm.....because it was funny ;) You do realize that Maher is a
comedian, don't you?
To paraphrase (and, well, lie) I know Maher, Maher is my friend, you,
sir, are no Maher.
Maher knows he would have gotten laughs if he had used lines like that.
I think he's just gotten a bit tame, since they booted him from ABC after
the 911 jihad.
BTW, have you seen _Borat_?
Not yet. Normally, I would have. I guess maybe you have some humor in
you somewhere and a taste for the crude stuff no less. Good for you.
Instead, she came across as a condescending ***** who
demanded that others sacrifice their lives from the safety of her
newspaper column.
I think you are reading a bit into the video.
Which is what you're supposed to do. Hello.
I don't know her and I
bet she is a condescending nasty person, but not from that video.
She gave indications.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "E" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
26 Nov 2006 07:51:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice. More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
Doesn't Christianity have a prohibition on suicide? And
wouldn't saying or doing something that you KNOW will bring about your
death be a form of suicide?
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve".
Saying someone is hungry assumes they are lacking something.
I'm not lacking anything. :)
-- E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
27 Nov 2006 10:41:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:51:43 -0500, E <shloop@gloop.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice. More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
Doesn't Christianity have a prohibition on suicide? And
wouldn't saying or doing something that you KNOW will bring about your
death be a form of suicide?
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve".
Saying someone is hungry assumes they are lacking something.
I'm not lacking anything. :)
-- E
I was shocked by the Rios statements on the video. I am used to
Xtians saying anything which is supportive of their religion, but she
got into some fundamental doctrine.
She said that real Christians could not deny their religion to save
their lives.
This monstrous doctrine implies that real xtians are assured of going
to heaven; therefore they are in no danger if threatened with being
killed, as long as they do not deny their faith. You can imagine a
suicide bomber (in a parallel statement) not being allowed to renounce
his mission because he is a real muslim assured of a short track to
paradise and his 72 virgins.
Rios further intimated that she was on firm ground by saying that her
son was raised in a good Christian home and he was studying for the
ministry.
Maher chided her for her religious hypocrisy, but she, like all
fundies, was not listening.
Clothaire #1392
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
28 Nov 2006 09:19:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:51:43 -0500, in alt.atheism , E
<shloop@gloop.com> in <vp6jm29ie90g40eu0svu9npleh40jq9v5l@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:16:26 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice. More over, Rios is manifestly wrong about xianity forbidding
this type of action, since St. Peter did it three times in one day and
yet is still considered a "saint".
Doesn't Christianity have a prohibition on suicide? And
wouldn't saying or doing something that you KNOW will bring about your
death be a form of suicide?
Yes, there is a prohibition on suicide and no, that is not the same as
suicide. Suicide is prohibited because it shows despair at the ability
of God to make things better. There is no such despair in that act.
Oh and as far as her idiotic "hunger" analogy went, what Maher should
have said, "Not only am I not hungry, but even if I were hungry I
wouldn't eat the happy christian horseshit you're trying to serve".
Saying someone is hungry assumes they are lacking something.
I'm not lacking anything. :)
Really? Then could you spare a twenty till next payday?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rusty Sites" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 06:23:52 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice.
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done. Not doing the latter is just plain
stupid. Is this really what Jesus wants? Oh, wait. It's just what
people say Jesus wants. You would think he wouldn't let morons speak
for him. He must not be paying attention. I am sure glad I'm not a
Christian and can tell whatever lies necessary to save my skin and then
say, "you really bought that *****?" later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 08:46:45 AM |
|
|
In article <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>,
says...
quibbler wrote:
I don't know if people have already seen this video, but, as usual, Maher
does a pretty good job of keeping the conversation focused on the
important points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309MCU8TonE&eurl=
I want to make some comments about the video too, but watch the video
first and then read them. <spoiler space added>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I guess my first comment is about Rios's disingenuous and informed
commentary about the Fox News reporters who were forced at gunpoint (or
swordpoint or whatever) to say they converted to Islam. First, she
denied that she was criticizing them. However, she clearly was
criticizing anyone who thought such a manuever was okay and that included
the Fox reporters. Secondly, I remember when this happened and the topic
was pretty well hashed out then. What people are forced to do under
duress is not considered binding under any reasonable standard of
justice.
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done. Not doing the latter is just plain
stupid. Is this really what Jesus wants? Oh, wait. It's just what
people say Jesus wants. You would think he wouldn't let morons speak
for him. He must not be paying attention. I am sure glad I'm not a
Christian and can tell whatever lies necessary to save my skin and then
say, "you really bought that *****?" later.
Exactly. I hope that most people who hear Rios shake their heads and
say, "That's crazy". Atheism is really nothing more than choosing to
live one's life by common sense, rather than stone age superstitions that
simply don't work in the modern world. If someone pointed a gun at my
head and forced me to profess belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I
would sing anthems to his noodly greatness. Any sane person would.
Furthermore, the person holding the gun has no right to expect that I am
actually being sincere. In fact, that person would have to be stupid to
think anybody would be. So it becomes an interesting academic exercise
to determine whether a xian like Rios or a "convert-em at gunpoint"
Muslim is the bigger moron. I guess I would still have to go with Rios,
because she literally wants someone else to die because they refuse to
say some words, whereas the muslims are giving you the option to live as
long as you say some words. Sheesh, these people are too fricken much.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 09:03:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 09:49:22 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army). Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 11:17:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:49:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<68k8h.14723$yl4.13530@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army).
For what notion of "get away"? She was convicted of a felony and went
to prison for it.
Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
You might want facts before you repeat this. She spend 22 months in
prison.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 12:41:44 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7lo3m29is50j57qnduo221nruqoqsub8fc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:49:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<68k8h.14723$yl4.13530@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army).
For what notion of "get away"? She was convicted of a felony and went
to prison for it.
I stand correct. That was however, here defense.
Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
You might want facts before you repeat this. She spend 22 months in
prison.
And she pleaded Stockholm Sydrome through it all.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 01:23:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:41:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<IFm8h.5418$yE6.1417@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7lo3m29is50j57qnduo221nruqoqsub8fc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:49:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<68k8h.14723$yl4.13530@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam) to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army).
For what notion of "get away"? She was convicted of a felony and went
to prison for it.
I stand correct. That was however, here defense.
Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
You might want facts before you repeat this. She spend 22 months in
prison.
And she pleaded Stockholm Sydrome through it all.
Let's see. She was kidnapped and rapes and threatened. Do you think
she would have committed those crimes if she was not a victim of some
horrible crimes herself?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 01:55:28 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:r204m25gblogn7as2ujgojoqurl5vlr7pt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:41:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<IFm8h.5418$yE6.1417@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7lo3m29is50j57qnduo221nruqoqsub8fc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:49:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<68k8h.14723$yl4.13530@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend
an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam)
to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the
SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army).
For what notion of "get away"? She was convicted of a felony and went
to prison for it.
I stand correct. That was however, here defense.
Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
You might want facts before you repeat this. She spend 22 months in
prison.
And she pleaded Stockholm Sydrome through it all.
Let's see. She was kidnapped and rapes and threatened. Do you think
she would have committed those crimes if she was not a victim of some
horrible crimes herself?
Only she knows for sure. Plus, just like OJ, her daddy wealth was able to
provide her the best defense money could buy!
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 07:36:00 PM |
|
|
MioMyo <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote:
Let's see. She was kidnapped and rapes and threatened. Do you think
she would have committed those crimes if she was not a victim of some
horrible crimes herself?
Only she knows for sure.
But that didn't prevent you from claiming "it is my conclusion she got
away with bank robbery while also being an accomplice to murder", now
did it?
Fucking moron...
.
|
|
|
| User: "MioMyo" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 08:21:34 PM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hp43ac.1kp89ow1jyaze2N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
MioMyo <USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> wrote:
Let's see. She was kidnapped and rapes and threatened. Do you think
she would have committed those crimes if she was not a victim of some
horrible crimes herself?
Only she knows for sure.
But that didn't prevent you from claiming "it is my conclusion she got
away with bank robbery while also being an accomplice to murder", now
did it?
Since this is your first entry on this thread, you are out of your effing
mind, you idiotic *****.
Fucking moron...
FU
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Maher Smacks Xian ***** From Fux News Pretty Good |
20 Nov 2006 02:32:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:55:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<QKn8h.13119$9v5.12098@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:r204m25gblogn7as2ujgojoqurl5vlr7pt@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:41:44 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<IFm8h.5418$yE6.1417@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:7lo3m29is50j57qnduo221nruqoqsub8fc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:49:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , "MioMyo"
<USA_Patriot@Somewhere.com> in
<68k8h.14723$yl4.13530@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dog3m293kb0a1pdl0q31ciurj5qf1qj22a@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:23:52 -0800, in alt.atheism , Rusty Sites
<SpameYouToo@spamex.com> in <12m37evoujru1a4@news.supernews.com>
wrote:
[snip]
Can you believe that she makes giving up one's life to save a friend
an
option but crying uncle (a Christian pretending to convert to Islam)
to
save one's life is simply not permitted? I would consider the former
optional but admirable if done.
Yes, I can believe it. I don't agree, but it follows rather reasonably
from the initial precepts. How far can that "crying uncle" go? At what
point is it no longer acceptable because it is under duress? There is
a gray area and she (with lots of theological supports) picks a rather
extreme side of it. I prefer her position to that which says it is ok
to kill and rape while under duress. (And, yes, I don't see those as
the only two options so I am not presenting a false dichotomy.) I
would draw the line differently, but I don't see my position as the
inherent inerrant truth.
Whether or not you remember her, Patty Hearst got away with other high
crimes while claiming to be under duress after being a captive of the
SLA
(Symbionese Liberation Army).
For what notion of "get away"? She was convicted of a felony and went
to prison for it.
I stand correct. That was however, here defense.
Furthermore, I disagreed with her defense, and
it is my conclusion she got away with bank robbery while also being an
accomplice to murder by claiming to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.
You might want facts before you repeat this. She spend 22 months in
prison.
And she pleaded Stockholm Sydrome through it all.
Let's see. She was kidnapped and rapes and threatened. Do you think
she would have committed those crimes if she was not a victim of some
horrible crimes herself?
Only she knows for sure.
Really? You have blamed her several times for her actions, I would
think you would have a position on this.
Plus, just like OJ, her daddy wealth was able to
provide her the best defense money could buy!
Except that she had a terrible defense. Big name, but really not a
particularly good lawyer.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
