ilovefuzz.com

Disarm D'arcy wrote:

Invisible Man wrote: Nothing more French than awarding French points...to yourself.

I'm in a shitty mood and want to argue. No surprise that D and DD take the bait.

Basically kinda bored with the whole knee-jerk 'Christianity is evil' play. It's annoying and disingenuous. Whatever edge it had has been dulled in infinite weed-shrouded dorm room discussions.

WELL POINT ME TO ANOTHER COMPETENT AUTHORITY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO EVALUATING FRENCHNESS. HINT. I ONLY RECOGNIZE MINE IN A VERY FRENCH WAY.

But it's nice to argue. It's fun intellectually I mean. It's engaging. And because you're a master in counterpoint it is even more. And it's not that often I get to drop my Camus knowledge and make decent use of it.

But I really thought we were way beyond discussing christianity (albeit a very specific form, because many christians are chill, and there are even churches, for exemple liberation theology is completely culturally and politically decentralized, at least theoretically). My thoughts apply to militant quinoa eaters too. I don't need them antagonizing my very legal carbohydrates because they have different moral standards than mine.

Def. Some may take this thread to be contentious and vilify christianity or christians, church etc. That isn't where I was going with it.
It's about the fundamentalist individual who does mental gymnastics to have their cake & eat it, too. The type of person whose conviction in their belief is iron clad, and *somehow* always favorable to facilitate their desire, even when contradicting the spirit of said belief.

jrfox92 wrote:

Disarm D'arcy wrote:

Invisible Man wrote: Basically kinda bored with the whole knee-jerk 'Christianity is evil' play. It's annoying and disingenuous. Whatever edge it had has been dulled in infinite weed-shrouded dorm room discussions.

But I really thought we were way beyond discussing christianity (albeit a very specific form, because many christians are chill, and there are even churches, for example liberation theology is completely culturally and politically decentralized, at least theoretically). My thoughts apply to militant quinoa eaters too. I don't need them antagonizing my very legal carbohydrates because they have different moral standards than mine.

Yeah, I viewed this less as a "Christianity is evil" thing and more of a "look at these assholes that can't even stick to their own beliefs" thing.
I've dealt with plenty of people like that in the Church. The kind that go to church Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday and act like they're god's gift to the world, so that gives them free reign to be assholes to anyone they deem "unworthy" of their holiness.

Yes. FME it's the people who wear their identity on their sleeves and carry themselves sanctimoniously who (deservingly) open themselves up to greater scrutiny. By rule such individuals tend to be the cruelest to anyone they perceive as out-group to their in-group. Also by rule such individuals fail to live up to their standards, image, and tend to be overcompensating for their own shortcomings.

D.o.S. wrote:Worth pointing out perhaps that those mythologies are defined by unending struggle, which (could, perhaps necessarily) conflate being religious and being an asshole -- at the very least being complicit if not actively engaging in behaviors, trends, and stances that would appear to modern man to be nothing less than definitively assholish?

History is literally littered with examples (based both in the secular and the sacred but the former isn't part of the discussion) but the idea of "what I am doing is intrinsically good because X validates it and, conveniently, X can be used to justify anything if I make a token motion that my behavior is in service of X*" means that they're not quite as neatly distinguished as your position may wish them to be in this conversation.

*alternatively written as:"Sorry buddy. Not really my problem"?

Also written/imagined as "Because this other individual thinks (or prays) like me and agrees, it means we and only those who are like us are the chosen ones; free to mistreat the infidels actively, passively, directly or by proxy. It's not only justified but necessary and right."

Invisible Man wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Worth pointing out perhaps that those mythologies are defined by unending struggle, which (could, perhaps necessarily) conflate being religious and being an asshole -- at the very least being complicit if not actively engaging in behaviors, trends, and stances that would appear to modern man to be nothing less than definitively assholish?

History is literally littered with examples (based both in the secular and the sacred but the former isn't part of the discussion) but the idea of "what I am doing is intrinsically good because X validates it and, conveniently, X can be used to justify anything if I make a token motion that my behavior is in service of X*" means that they're not quite as neatly distinguished as your position may wish them to be in this conversation.

*alternatively written as:"Sorry buddy. Not really my problem"?

If some external idea/god/presence validates an action, isn't that the definition of extrinsic motivation? Not being petty about word choices, just not sure I follow.

Not for nothing that the X is this equation is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to being annoyed at the digs this thread takes. It's the same thing I've said elsewhere: it doesn't make sense to me that people who have lots of sensitivity to subjectivity dismiss folks who feel differently than they do. I understand why--'don't impose your perceived-objective reality on me'--but there's an element of crazy to that way of thinking. Thinking has to be grounded in some shared sense of empirical reality (if it isn't, it's a literal definition for madness).

Yeah man. It's extra grating, having to endure the solipsistic way of thinking, where an individual conflates their opinion with fact and proselytizes on a soap box. But feeling differently about the facts doesn't change [them]. Fundies tend to have a static view of *objective reality* which aligns with and hinges upon their opinion being correct from their vantage, so they assert facts are open to debate. Whether the fundie is on the A or B side of an issue, their perspective is the best to see the facts (and almost always myopic).

I think in reality, it's the outsider observing both A and B from C or beyond, who has an objectively superior view of the issue... and by sincerely putting themselves in both A and B's positions (and divorcing themselves from sentimental bias) can the "what happened" have any solid foundation. Madness is "what happened" still being open to endless debate, once the principle details are accurate. "Why it happened" is a better target for such thought exercise... and the bias really comes out

D.o.S. wrote:And there's no 'dig' inherent in the X example -- it's just identifying an iteration of superior orders/command responsibility that may justify acting like an asshole (or whatever term you want) that seems to come hand in hand with tethering yourself to a lifestyle doctrine like the one being discussed.

In-group/out-group dynamic and the stack of sin...where all sins are not equal, and neither are the sinners.

Invisible Man wrote:Fires will burn anyway, D. We're solving the crisis of modernity here.

I wasn't saying you made a dig--I meant the sense of 'yeah religion is so phony ha ha' that seems so base, easy, and dismissive.

It's not the belief system of the sheep which is phony; the phony is the wolf in sheep's clothing.