The Gaming Den

tzor wrote:So given this, what the fuck is the meaning of your reference to "organized religion." Are you implying that unorganized religon is so much the wonder place of peace, love, and happiness. Or is a lame attempt at guilt by association, implying that since everyone associates "organized" with "organized crime" that all religions are crooks.

How about: unorganized religion is just a bunch of idiots doing retarded shit, and is in that way just like them being mentally retarded, but organized religion is how you pick the craziest person you can find, and then all agree to do whatever he says.

Organized religion is worse, because even though unorganized religion is just a bunch of idiots, organized religion is a bunch of idiots who specifically go out of their way to do stupid things that are so crazy they wouldn't have even thought of them, like holding a bible over your dick to not give someone else aids.

Not religious but spiritual people might do something crazy and stupid like pray for their aids to go away, but they wouldn't do something crazier, like have unprotected sex with their partner who doesn't have aids, thus giving them aids, because they think it's safe.

To be that fucking retarded, you have to be Catholic.

Crissa wrote:So, when you try to kill everyone, it isn't genocide, because... Not all gay people are under 18 or disabled?

-Crissa

This is only mildly frustrating. Please, if you're going to debate something, inform yourself instead of listening to loud rhetoric. The death penalty aspect of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (not the "Kill the Gays Bill") only applies to people who have same-sex intercourse when...

...the "offender" has sex with someone under the age of 18 (underage in Uganda). They punish heterosexuals for statutory rape with death as well, if I recall correctly.

...the "offender" is HIV positive.
...the "offender" is a parent, guardian, or otherwise a "person in authority" over the person with whom s/he has sex.
...the "offender" is a "serial offender."
...the "offender" uses drugs for date-rape purposes.
...the "offender" has sex with a person with a disability.

The rest of the time, they threaten time in prison. So, there's no genocide here. Genocide would be murdering every homosexual ever. Is it discriminatory and wrong? It sure is. But to say that it's genocide is pretty disrespectful to the people who suffered in the Holocaust.

Kaelik wrote:This is fucking Uganda. Like, 40% of everyone has Aids anyway, and it's higher in the gay community.

Facts wrote:The current HIV prevalence in Uganda is estimated at 5.4% amongst adults.15

This thread is an embarrassment to TGD. The sheer amount of uneducated shrieking about how Rick Warren wants to commit genocide against gays is something you all should be ashamed of. Do you consider yourselves to be amongst the intellectual elite? I know that more than a few of you do. You have proven yourselves to be slaves to misinformation and rhetoric. Intellectuals do not listen to the people who shout the loudest; they listen to the facts and make an informed opinion. (However, it seems that those who consider themselves to be intellectuals do listen to the person with a megaphone.)

What I'm seeing here is a lot of baseless ranting. Rick Warren says he condemns the bill? He's backpeddling from trying to kill the gays! Rick Warren severs ties with the main proponent of the bill two years ago? He wants to kill the gays! The bill only specifies the death penalty in certain cases? Rick Warren wants to commit genocide!

And yet you're unperturbed by your ignorance. This is the most disturbing part of all. You rail against ignorance and the "irrational debate lobby" all the time, and yet you are steeped in it, unwilling to listen to reason and educate yourselves. You are happy to wallow in your simpleton filth, slathering feces on each other in an orgy of mutual ignorance and masturbatory rhetoric.

You play intellectual like children play house.

Psychic Robot wrote: This is only mildly frustrating. Please, if you're going to debate something, inform yourself instead of listening to loud rhetoric. The death penalty aspect of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (not the "Kill the Gays Bill") only applies to people who have same-sex intercourse when...

...the "offender" has sex with someone under the age of 18 (underage in Uganda). They punish heterosexuals for statutory rape with death as well, if I recall correctly.

...the "offender" is HIV positive.
...the "offender" is a parent, guardian, or otherwise a "person in authority" over the person with whom s/he has sex.
...the "offender" is a "serial offender."
...the "offender" uses drugs for date-rape purposes.
...the "offender" has sex with a person with a disability.

The rest of the time, they threaten time in prison. So, there's no genocide here. Genocide would be murdering every homosexual ever.

Do you realize what being a "serial offender" means?

PR, I know you're an asshole, like all the time, but seriously what the fuck? I mean seriously what the fuck? The Ugandan provisions go way farther than the Nazis did until their genocide program had been going on for a decade. The Rwandan Genocide hadn't worked itself up to literally and explicitly executing all the Tutsis who had some arbitrarily and vaguely defined kill criteria until the thing had been a shooting war for some time.

This is how genocide starts. And the Ugandan provisions are intense. Hitler never would have tried to go straight for something like that in 1933. And in case you think you've convinced anyone that this isn't an attempt to murder all the gays:

The death penalty. That's what you're looking at if you're an adult over age 18 who has sex with someone of the same gender who is under 18. Or if you have gay sex while carrying HIV/AIDS. Or with a disabled person. Or if you are "a serial offender" who has gay sex often.

Life in prison. If you have consensual gay sex. Even if you do it outside Uganda's borders.

7-year jail sentence. Anyone who "attempts to commit homosexuality" (i.e. makes a pass). Or anyone convicted of "aiding and abetting homosexuality" (i.e. providing a bedroom). Or anyone "promoting" it (i.e. introducing two partners).

3-year jail sentence. If you failed to report someone to the police within 24 hours of learning they had gay sex.

Not only is it a crime to merely hide lesbian Anne Frank in your attic, they can upgrade the sentence on any gay person to the death penalty if the court decides that in addition to having gay sex, that they do it "a lot." That's not just the rumblings of something that's obviously heading towards genocide, that's full-on start-the-ovens final solution shit.

And if anything is embarrassing the gaming den, it's you trying to find a fucking silver lining to it.

-Username17

Also, wasn't gay sex in jail also a punishable offense?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Also, wasn't gay sex in jail also a punishable offense?

-Crissa

Yes. Also it doesn't distinguish between rape, consensual sex, or even being raped. So to add to the insanity, someone who is raped in prison is up for the death penalty if they get HIV from it or get raped a second time to make them a serial gay sexer. But that part isn't even important. The important part is the part where it's a death penalty for people who have consensual gay sex "often" and it's a three year prison term for doctors who don't turn in all the gays they know of to potential execution.

-Username17

The argument has shifted from "Rick Warren supports genocide" to "Uganda is supporting a bill that could very well lead to genocide in the future."

I'm glad that I never disputed that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill couldn't lead to genocide. In fact, I was merely discussing the bill as-is and Rick Warren's involvement in it. Again, don't let the facts cloud your rhetoric.

Psychic Robot wrote:The argument has shifted from "Rick Warren supports genocide" to "Uganda is supporting a bill that could very well lead to genocide in the future."

I'm glad that I never disputed that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill couldn't lead to genocide. In fact, I was merely discussing the bill as-is and Rick Warren's involvement in it. Again, don't let the facts cloud your rhetoric.

Wat?

The only reason that it "could well lead to genocide in the future" is because it hasn't passed. And indeed, will likely not pass because people all over the world were fucking pissed.

If it actually went and became law as originally written, that would be the beginning of a genocidal campaign. No "could well" about it.

And Rick Warren hasn't actually stopped funding the guys doing this, so he is still supporting genocide.

-Username17

Here, Kaelik, let me correct your last post.

Kaelik-Corrected by Tzor wrote:How about: unorganized anything is just a bunch of idiots doing retarded shit, and is in that way just like them being mentally retarded, but organized anything is how you pick the craziest person you can find, and then all agree to do whatever he says.

Organized anything is worse, because even though unorganized anything is just a bunch of idiots, organized anything is a bunch of idiots who specifically go out of their way to do stupid things that are so crazy they wouldn't have even thought of them, like holding a bible over your dick to not give someone else aids.

Not religious but spiritual people might do something crazy and stupid like pray for their aids to go away, but they wouldn't do something crazier, like have unprotected sex with their partner who doesn't have aids, thus giving them aids, because they think it's safe.

In order to understand this, all you need to do is have the ability to see a generic argument when someone makes it. And when I mean anything I mean it. Religion, government, sports games, role players, college students, people who love to sing, etc.

tzor wrote:Here, Kaelik, let me correct your last post.

Kaelik-Corrected by Tzor wrote:How about: unorganized anything is just a bunch of idiots doing retarded shit, and is in that way just like them being mentally retarded, but organized anything is how you pick the craziest person you can find, and then all agree to do whatever he says.

Organized anything is worse, because even though unorganized anything is just a bunch of idiots, organized anything is a bunch of idiots who specifically go out of their way to do stupid things that are so crazy they wouldn't have even thought of them, like holding a bible over your dick to not give someone else aids.

Not religious but spiritual people might do something crazy and stupid like pray for their aids to go away, but they wouldn't do something crazier, like have unprotected sex with their partner who doesn't have aids, thus giving them aids, because they think it's safe.

In order to understand this, all you need to do is have the ability to see a generic argument when someone makes it. And when I mean anything I mean it. Religion, government, sports games, role players, college students, people who love to sing, etc.

Except that religion has a prerequisite of idiocy (accepting something as true explicitly when there is no proof) and that makes it worse.

ubernoob wrote:Except that religion has a prerequisite of idiocy (accepting something as true explicitly when there is no proof) and that makes it worse.

The foundation of all things is the acceptance of axioms, (a proposition, principle, rule, or maxim that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy thereof whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit <the axioms of wisdom> or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence <the axioms of euclidean geometry>) that are simply assumed. There is no known science nor art that can exist without a set of axioms which in turn cannot be proven but must be assumed.

Just because you don't believe in a certain set of axioms or you don't think that the self evidence supports them is no reason to get all fancy and shit; you only reveal yourself to be the egotistical bastard you are.

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Except that religion has a prerequisite of idiocy (accepting something as true explicitly when there is no proof) and that makes it worse.

The foundation of all things is the acceptance of axioms, (a proposition, principle, rule, or maxim that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy thereof whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit <the axioms of wisdom> or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence <the axioms of euclidean geometry>) that are simply assumed. There is no known science nor art that can exist without a set of axioms which in turn cannot be proven but must be assumed.

Just because you don't believe in a certain set of axioms or you don't think that the self evidence supports them is no reason to get all fancy and shit; you only reveal yourself to be the egotistical bastard you are.

Science is built on things that there is evidence for. The definition of faith is accepting without evidence. Do you not get how science and faith are not the same thing? How one has lots of support that it works and the other is often referred to as a placebo?

ubernoob wrote:Except that religion has a prerequisite of idiocy (accepting something as true explicitly when there is no proof) and that makes it worse.

I wouldn't call that idiocy. Sometimes you don't have any proof, but just acting as if something's true (i.e., taking it on faith), can give you a place to start.

The idiocy comes in when people take religion as being more true than anything else. That the world around them must be lying, not that people a thousand or three years ago could have been wrong on points of science. Or that their ethics weren't skewed.

I mean, there's a ton of references in the Bible to how the Israelites just massacred tribe after tribe, and this is showed at a heroic thing, even after they kill the menfolk and then begin putting non-virgin women to the sword.

Maxus wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Except that religion has a prerequisite of idiocy (accepting something as true explicitly when there is no proof) and that makes it worse.

I wouldn't call that idiocy. Sometimes you don't have any proof, but just acting as if something's true (i.e., taking it on faith), can give you a place to start.

The idiocy comes in when people take religion as being more true than anything else. That the world around them must be lying, not that people a thousand or three years ago could have been wrong on points of science. Or that their ethics weren't skewed.

I mean, there's a ton of references in the Bible to how the Israelites just massacred tribe after tribe, and this is showed at a heroic thing, even after they kill the menfolk and then begin putting non-virgin women to the sword.

There are a lot of points I could have used to argue that religion has bad prerequisites, and this is another good one. I agree.

FrankTrollman wrote:Wat?

The only reason that it "could well lead to genocide in the future" is because it hasn't passed. And indeed, will likely not pass because people all over the world were fucking pissed.

If it actually went and became law as originally written, that would be the beginning of a genocidal campaign. No "could well" about it.

And Rick Warren hasn't actually stopped funding the guys doing this, so he is still supporting genocide.

-Username17

Sufficiently ignorant opinions are indistinguishable from trolling. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is not a genocidal campaign because it fails to meet the prerequisites of an actual genocide puts you right in that category. The fact that you maintain that Rick Warren supports genocide also puts you in that category.

tzor wrote:Here, Kaelik, let me correct your last post.

In order to understand this, all you need to do is have the ability to see a generic argument when someone makes it. And when I mean anything I mean it. Religion, government, sports games, role players, college students, people who love to sing, etc.

In order to understand my post, you need to be smart enough (Hint, you are not) to realize that Groups of people singing does not involve people being retarded.

Groups of religious people, by definition, involves a bunch of retarded people getting together to talk about their retardation. And just like the best singers get to be in charge of the singing, the most retarded people get to be in charge of the religion.

That's pretty much it.

Groups of people singing leads to at the very very very worst, noise pollution, and who fucking cares.

Groups of people trying to be as retarded as possible is bad.

Psychic Robot wrote:Sufficiently ignorant opinions are indistinguishable from trolling. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is not a genocidal campaign because it fails to meet the prerequisites of an actual genocide puts you right in that category. The fact that you maintain that Rick Warren supports genocide also puts you in that category.

Right, right, because killing everyone who has a lot of gay sex is completely different from exterminating all the gay people. The bill, were it to pass, commands the extermination of gay people.

Or are you arguing that the bill (a piece of text) is not a genocidal campaign (a set of actions), therefore the bill is OK?

The only other interpretation I can think of for this post is that this

Sufficiently ignorant opinions are indistinguishable from trolling.

actually refers to you. Given your history, that might actually be the correct interpretation. I'm going to go with it for now.

ubernoob wrote:Science is built on things that there is evidence for. The definition of faith is accepting without evidence. Do you not get how science and faith are not the same thing? How one has lots of support that it works and the other is often referred to as a placebo?

No, science is built on assumptions. Science is a way of making observations that yield to rules for the prediction of future observations. Sometimes these observations challenge the basic assumptions and then those assumptions have to be scrapped.

Most ideas in religion don’t have the idea that you can make “observations.” Half of religion is philosophy and the other half is history. You might even say that religion is more like macro economics.

tzor wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Science is built on things that there is evidence for. The definition of faith is accepting without evidence. Do you not get how science and faith are not the same thing? How one has lots of support that it works and the other is often referred to as a placebo?

No, science is built on assumptions. Science is a way of making observations that yield to rules for the prediction of future observations. Sometimes these observations challenge the basic assumptions and then those assumptions have to be scrapped.

Most ideas in religion don’t have the idea that you can make “observations.” Half of religion is philosophy and the other half is history. You might even say that religion is more like macro economics.

Let me spell it out for you since you are apparently retarded.

Scientific Method wrote: 1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I have bolded the steps that religion skips. Religion first formed because man could not explain the world around him and the unknown scares man. By assigning a value (even a wrong value), man is able to avoid that fear. Anything that man has the ability to test and gain data on should be outside the bounds of religion (because assigning an arbitrary value to something is the last resort to stave off fear).

Seriously, science is built upon CHALLENGING assumptions (see step eight). I don't know how a man your age can be this retarded.

I seriously don't know any scientist that actually follows the scientific method as outlined in the post above me. (Being a graduate student in a college of science, I know a lot of scientists.)

I also don't even know what you're replying to because tzor even said that there's no such thing as observations in religions. It's like you're in violent agreement.

Surgo wrote:I seriously don't know any scientist that actually follows the scientific method as outlined in the post above me. (Being a graduate student in a college of science, I know a lot of scientists.)

I also don't even know what you're replying to because tzor even said that there's no such thing as observations in religions. It's like you're in violent agreement.

Tzor, in the post above wrote:No, science is built on assumptions.

The rest of his post is pretty much just gibberish that has no relation to the rest of the thread, so I just ignored it.

I will now post a link to a picture that accurately describes the content of this thread: click.

Well this thread had an amusing downward spiral.

Psychic Robot wrote:I will now post a link to a picture that accurately describes the content of this thread: click.

Really? Really, PR? Are you fucking shitting me?

ubernoob wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:I will now post a link to a picture that accurately describes the content of this thread: click.

Really? Really, PR? Are you fucking shitting me?

Well, he did say

Sufficiently ignorant opinions are indistinguishable from trolling.

as self-description.

So he is, in fact, a troll.