I wish you had put this in your first post so I could have known then that: you are not a serious person.
That is bullshit as well.
What is the point of being an atheist if you are just going to make up a fantasy world to live in anyway?
2 Likes
Weāll see if @Shane59 responds, and how he responds, but at this point I think heās trolling.
2 Likes
Hi Shane Like some of the others here I will echo the obvious that you need to make some hard decisions.
@Cognostic asked the question:
It sounds like, for the sake of your marriage, you are consigning yourself to martyrdom. The person making all the compromises. If you take that route how long do you think it will be before you hate the very ground she walks on and the church she attends. If you own a weapon you might consider getting rid of it.
Good marriages are made by strong independent people who can compromise but not surrender. So how about joining a club that reflects your interests, make friends with folks who share your interests. It sounds like you will have time for these pursuits while your wife is busy beseeching her god to keep her safe from the woken.
By pursuing your interest you are shaping the life you want. That way you are respecting yourself and while not agreeing with her choices you are recognizing her right to make choices for herself. You might also think about setting a limit on how much of the family money can go to the pastor.
Good Luck
Oh and some other time you and I can discuss your propensity for conspiracy theories.
I think by now Shane69 has become a devout Christian. A brief discussion here quickly clarified why his wife suddenly converted.
Where exactly is the line between a troll and someone who simply disagrees?
Try someone who wilfully posts known and well documented falsehoods as if they constituted fact.
3 Likes
Well, itās not any one thing, but making claims that are contradicted by objective fact, using broad sweeping bigotry and hate speech, hinting at broad conspiracies, and posting all the same in a debate forum, then refusing to answer any objections, are all pretty strong indicators in my experience, that they are here to preach and provoke, rather than debate. Especially as these all seem at odds with the reasons they gave for the thread, as if they were trying to hide their true purpose in starting the thread.
I believe ideas should be debated, not stigmatized. Itās also dangerous to make assumptions about people based on what we think they truly want.
Just my thoughts.
I believe that has zero relevance to what I said?
I made no assumptions, I stated the facts, and what I thought they likely indicated, and why.
FWIW, I have no time for hate speech or bigotry, and this site expressly forbids homophobic and bigoted hate speech. The ludicrous denial of facts like climate change, was just nonsense that had nothing whatever to do with the thread he started.
1 Like
Oh, I think there are many ideas that should be stigmatized! And why would that preclude debate?
What if those who donāt think like you do the same?
I disagree.
So you think the idea that, for instance, the rape of a four year old is acceptable should not be stigmatized?
3 Likes
Beat me to it, racism, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse, are ideas I would think any decent person would be happy to stigmatise, just off the top of my head. Spreading misinformation to discourage parents from vaccinating children is another one, and for that matter lying about climate change is pretty shitty behaviour.
2 Likes
This is complete nonsense, clearly.
Again, the notion that lies and garbage come exclusively from one side of the political divide, is utter nonsense. One should assess ideas based on their own merit, and not on preconceived prejudices.
Wow! So which vaccine are you asserting is unsafe, and why? Just for clarity do you think expensive houses and cars must be unsafe, because the people who make them want to make a profit? Itās asinine and dangerous nonsense, to peddle misinformation about vaccines in this way.
He certainly seems to have a penchant for fantasies.
Where do we draw the line in deciding when ideas should be stigmatized? Should someone who denies climate change face the same level of social stigma as someone who commits serious crimes? We should be cautious, as stigmatizing ideas can hinder meaningful debate. Silencing debate may ultimately do more harm than good.
Stigmatization contributes to polarization, which is why I believe it should be applied with extreme caution. Polarization is harmful and almost always ends badly.
Iāve met excellent people who donāt share my ideas at all, and Iāve also encountered truly unpleasant individuals who had views similar to mine in certain areas. For this reason, Iām very reluctant to judge people based on their alignment with my ideas. I prefer to see who the person really is.
Just my opinion, perhaps influenced by the idea of āloving your enemies,ā but honestly, wars begin when debate ends.
Like spreading racist, homophobic or misogynistic hate speech then.
Thatās a false equivalence fallacy, since no one has suggested anyone be stigmatised just because they have expressed ideas different to my own. You were even given examples, but ignored them all. Try addressing the examples, or are you saying there is no idea youād stigmatise someone for expressing?
Hereās the post again, with the examples you ignored.
I will not stigmatize anyone before understanding why they think the way they do. You might discover they are not racist, misogynistic, or whatever you initially assumed. But I refuse to stigmatize someone before hearing their arguments. Sorry, thatās just how I am. You canāt assume everyone is a deceiver, although I admit that sometimes you must refrain from listening to them.
A different case is when someone commits a crime, which obviously carries the stigma of being a criminal.