Fundies..., It would be funny if it weren't so sad

We haven't?

So, according to you, Goebbels (figuratively) created antisemitism? No, he only lead the already existing antisemites to Crystal Night.

Perhaps we understand propaganda differently. I define it as mass-scale, organized action of a group of people trying to spread an idea.

Antisemitism (for simplicity, since you mentioned rats, I'm going to assume we're talking about 20th century antisemitism) began on the streets. Damn Jews, taking our jobs. And they have money, and we don't. That's just wrong! How did they get their money, anyway? They must have stole it from us hard working Christians! And they grind our children into matzah, when we're not looking!

This wasn't a top-down movement, a politician deciding "let's just blame Jews for everything". But when politicians caught wind of what their potential electorate is saying, hats went off.

But in a way, what you're saying was true in that case. Political climate encouraged people to follow with more and more hateful ideas. Gave them feeling that they're strong, they're many, and they're right.

I could research that, if you want.

But that was then. Now it's different. It could still fly in third world countries, but in USA? What can this propaganda do? They are in defense, they have no way of pushing back. They won't make it legal again to persecute gays, they can't petition it, can't push for laws. They can only scream about family values. Taking them away won't stop the spread of homophobia, though it looks less like spread and more like regress.

And as for "those other guys, they are bad, aren't they?" -- you know, that's what one caveman said to another, long before Romans came up with the word "propagao". Hatred of others is the default state of human mind. Jews were others, and they were hated by default, since middle ages at least. Gays are others too. Perhaps in time, they will be integrated into normal in the public view.

There is no right. All is Chaos.

But, well.
For one, I argue that anti-gay movement is not, in present, as dangerous as you say.
For two... I think I can say it now, thanks to LMarlowe.

So it's wrong. And you're right.
But most people think that's how it should be. So even if you're right, it's meaningless if you can't convince others that you are. Because if others don't see the truth, there's nothing you can do with it, and the wrong idea will be enforced.

That's... somewhere where I was going with this "gay marriage is morally equivalent to interracial marriage" thingy.

Ok, I'm having a headache, and I'm not getting any more coherent today. Maybe tomorrow the dust will clear... that was a pretty epic scale debate for this forum, you know.

Oh, and it was Hark and LMarlowe vs me, Tiberius and Canuovea (and Renard gave moral support for the "gay pride" argument). We defeated you by democracy 3:2, therefore we're right. That's the lesson for today/

Fallacy.
Arguement to Popularity

And yes this was a pretty epic debate.
Good game everyone. we may continue it later.

That's it, I'm never going to be ironic on this forum anymore <_<.
By the way. It's a fallacy as a means of proving something. In practice, that's what democracy is.
And that's the lesson for today.

Or not.

I think the comparison to interracial marriage would work... if you were able to explain in an argument why the two were equivalent to someone who is pro-interracial marriage but anti-gay marriage. That might be effective as an argument. It would be fun to see though, as we aren't quite as logical as we like to think.

Though I suspect that saying they are equivalent would get a response of "no they aren't!" Here:
The Couple is not naturally fertile (fallacy, appeal to nature/natural stuff)
Sex is different from racial skin colour, not all persecuted groups are the same and saying they are is dangerous (true)
Children require both a mother and father from a developmental perspective (eeeeeeeck, they could probably argue that for hours)
Then the religious reasons.

Gay Pride Parades... uh... the ones around here can get pretty lewd. I don't like that, I think such behaviour is stupid and annoying. But that is me being prudish, not being homophobic. The homophobia comes when we try to link that lewdness as being part of what a homosexual is (which is bullshit, of course).

Same with the idea that "Gays behave this way" type thoughts. You know, "Oh that lisp! Gay!" Or "Crazy polyamorous STD magnets! Gay people are like that!" That assignment of belief is... well... bad. Stupid. When we have one label, we need to be careful before saying that it implies another label. And that is one problem with things like Gay Pride, the image they put out sometimes. After all, if the event involves running around naked, then the homosexuals who aren't in to that kind of thing are probably not going to go. But if such an activity is labeled as "homosexual" by other homosexuals then it is going to misrepresent homosexuals in general.

LMarlowe:
"not saying that every lgbt person has to be flaming or whatever but the idea (and what you're saying) about how they basically should just cover up and conform to what is considered "normal"... is wrong"

...Well, I don't think gay people have to not be "flaming" or whatnot. I personally believe the idea of "flaming" is a cultural concoction. Before that, gay people behaved like other people, they just had sex with people of the same sex. I think that people can behave as they wish, including heterosexuals who wish to behave as if they were "flaming". I do think that propagating the idea that gay people are flaming is a terrible thing, and actually against the interests of homosexuals.

Hatred of any kind can lead to harm, that includes homophobia and anti-semitism. But having such views out in the open where they can be challenged, and having a system designed to prevent total persecution of those with differing opinions, is a good thing.

And Hark, I never said that you wanted to use the Government to shut down Chick-Fil-A, or whatnot, but some mayors seem to be making a point about them having tried to do so. Which is bad.

That's it, I'm never going to be ironic on this forum anymore <_<.
By the way. It's a fallacy as a means of proving something. In practice, that's what democracy is.
And that's the lesson for today.

Or not.

Don't be like that. I was just messing with you.

Come on, show us a smile.

Smile damn it!

(Posted Image)

God Damn it Renard. Now I'm going to get nightmares again.

STOP SMILING! STOP SMILING!

I think I used that photo on another thread a little while ago... can't remember why I did, but it drew the same reactions. I think I'll just drop that in every once in a while to mess with people.

Aww. How about a cute smile of evil?
(Posted Image)

Yesterday I thought I'd use something like Renard's, but... yeah.

What, you don't like Richard James' creepy rape face? Or are you annoyed that I was faster on the draw and posted something warped before you?

Well, I don't think I could best you in that. :D
So maybe it's for the better. Posting MLP:FiM images is more like my kind of trick.

And being a creepy bastard is my thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfxNG_TM8J4&feature=related

around 4:15.
"One of the major fundamentalism that work in British culture today is Atheist Fundamentalism."

I am Validated!
I've said they exist, and now this professor of Philosophy agrees.
I am aware no-one here disagreed with me on that, but its still cool to hear a Professor say something you already figured out and have been saying.
I haven't said it in the context of British culture though.

back to watching.

I wish it had subtitles. they keep talking over each other.

As for Atheist fundies possibly being more dangerous then religious ones. I don't think that's true, at the moment. I think it is very possible in the future. They have the potential, but don't have the momentum for it... yet.

I feel a bit sorry for the first Muslim guy they talked to. the one from "Muslims against crusades". They seemed to have him there just to point and say "he's an asshole. You (the Muslim professor) are awesome for opposing him"
I'm sure I would feel differently If I could hear what he was saying.
again, Need subtitles.

just washed about three seconds more after adding that last paragraph.
What an asshole.
Just because she doesn't cover up, he says she can not be an authority on the Koran, or even be a Muslim.
So yeah, Now that I finally hear him say something, I've lost sympathy for him.

I need to stop editing more stuff into this post

"You don't believe in democracy, Right?"
"Clearly Not. I'm Muslim aren't I?"
wow... The moment I finally get to hear him clearly say things, he just lets it all out.

"How should we handle our friend here?"
"I think we should sponsor him to go to university and study theology."
Win.

They need to decide who speaks by doing rock paper scissors.

I really need to stop clicking "edit"