Hot Coffee Too Hot? - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-26-2005, 03:03 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

you could, however, draw a comparison with certain groups that are self-defined as "radical" -- Act Up! in the 1980s was like this as they went around outing many, many local and state level politicians, as well as other celebrities, in response to the AIDS crisis and the Reagan administration's refusal to do anything about it.
Now, in a labeling scheme, would Act Up! qualify as a "Gay Taliban"?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 03:12 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Only when it is endlessly tossed into threads that have nothing to do with the two religions.

If we are going to accept new and inventive terms to express ourselves, what is that to you?
I really couldn't care less about these new and inventive terms. I just found it amusing that someone who complains so bitterly about what he regards as "tit-for-tat" comparisons between religions was so gleeful about the opportunity to describe other groups as the Taliban in revenge for others using the phrase Christian Taliban. Tit-for-tat anyone?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 03:15 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I really couldn't care less about these new and inventive terms. I just found it amusing that someone who complains so bitterly about what he regards as "tit-for-tat" comparisons between religions was so gleeful about the opportunity to describe other groups as the Taliban in revenge for others using the phrase Christian Taliban. Tit-for-tat anyone?
Simply mocking the idea.

Not creating a holy war mentality between two religions.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 03:23 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Simply mocking the idea.

Not creating a holy war mentality between two religions.
I thought I was the one doing the mocking in this conversation.

And in what way does pointing out that there are extremists in every religion create a "holy war mentality" between religions? Surely the reverse - claiming that only one religion has extremist adherents - is more likely to create that mentality.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 03:23 PM   #80
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Now, in a labeling scheme, would Act Up! qualify as a "Gay Taliban"?


no.

they do not have a list of rules based upon the subjective interpretation of a document of dubious record for the government of all society. they resorted to what was considered radical means to bring attention to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.

there are some who view the movement towards gay marriage as something of a selling out and an acquiescence to the dominant culture, a way of begging to be colonized. they assert that instead of trying to adopt the customs of the dominant culture, gay people should fight for the legitimacy and recognition (or fight against all legitimacy and recognition) for a variety of relationships and lifestyles -- this would include polygamy, open marriages, non-married partners, etc. this might be, in effect, a radical viewpoint, but it applies only to a specific issue. there is no movement to force others to abide by the same rules, just either an accepting of new rules or of the rejection of all rules.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-26-2005, 04:14 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
no.

they do not have a list of rules based upon the subjective interpretation of a document of dubious record for the government of all society. they resorted to what was considered radical means to bring attention to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.
On what do they base their rule set? Is this a rule set that should be commonly accepted?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 04:50 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


On what do they base their rule set? Is this a rule set that should be commonly accepted?


you're missing the point here.

religion. it's all about religion.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-26-2005, 05:27 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
So if I create a rule set and call it "not religion," I can force it on others?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 06:07 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So if I create a rule set and call it "not religion," I can force it on others?


no. you're not weilding the imagined power of the Almighty.

who are you?

but hey, when you tell me that it's not you, but *through* you, that God is making rules, then you can start to control people.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-26-2005, 06:09 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Point, Crusader. Your serve, Irvine?

I think there is a lot to be said about the danger of the religious right, but I think religion is the excuse and not the reason for these people. Aren't there other driving forces besides religion that seek unreasonable control? Who want to impose?



Oops. Sorry, Irvine. You already served. My question still stands.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 07:40 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

are the homosexual perverts trying to force you to engage in their sex acts via legislation and heavily monied political action groups that have the ear of the White House?
No, but what difference does that make when it comes to the appropriateness of using inflammatory labels?

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
also, have you made the consistent, coherent effort to distinguish between a select group of self-defined individuals, or are you tossing it around whenever the situation calls for?

There are many times that a dictinction has not been made clear when you guys throw out the labels. And other times, the labels have been thrown out against people who simply disagree with you. The book-burners, for instance; they aren't trying to force their views on anyone - they are simply showing people how they feel about the book. That is apparently enough for some people to call them Christofascists and compare them to the KKK and the Taliban.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
you see, you can't make this one-to-one comparison. it doesn't hold any water whatsoever -- comparing someone on a float in a parade and a highly organized group like Focus on the Family. and it plays directly into NBC's earlier point: labels are useless when it comes to individuals (which a person on a float would be). however, labels are useful and necessary in political discourse when groups have self-defined by such labels.
That would be fine and dandy if I were comparing the two groups of people, but I'm not. I'm comparing the appropriateness of the use of inflammatory labels, and you haven't convinced me that there's any difference in the two examples.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 07:50 PM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


No, but what difference does that make when it comes to the appropriateness of using inflammatory labels?



That would be fine and dandy if I were comparing the two groups of people, but I'm not. I'm comparing the appropriateness of the use of inflammatory labels, and you haven't convinced me that there's any difference in the two examples.


are you ignoring what i've written? "Christianist" is NOT an inflammatory label, unless you're just waiting to be offended. if you pay attention to the part of speech the term is (adjective) and it's intention (to further highlight the differences between politicized Christianity and personal Christianity), then you'd see that 1) it's a term of sensitivity (just as any Muslim would want to distingush between "Islamic" and "Islamist"), and 2) you have absolutely no basis in comparing someone with the mighty political clout of Jerry Fallwell to some 42 year old bear swinging in a sling on a float on a hot Saturday afternoon in July.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-26-2005, 07:53 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Point, Crusader. Your serve, Irvine?

I think there is a lot to be said about the danger of the religious right, but I think religion is the excuse and not the reason for these people. Aren't there other driving forces besides religion that seek unreasonable control? Who want to impose?



Oops. Sorry, Irvine. You already served. My question still stands.


i don't know how many times i can keep repeating myself.

"Christianist" is a POLITICAL term used to distinguish between something that is necessarily Christian (belief in Christ as savior) versus a political agenda that has appropriated a version of Christianity (that women should be obediant to their husbands). one is Christian, the other is Christianist.

religion is not their excuse, it is their tool (and sometimes weapon).
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-26-2005, 08:11 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
are you ignoring what i've written? "Christianist" is NOT an inflammatory label, unless you're just waiting to be offended.
Is inflammatory measured by the user of the word, or by the hearer?

There are a number of terms that are deemed inflammatory (non-PC). Couldn't you simply argue that the hearer of the "inflammatory" word was simply waiting to be offended?

Take "the 'N' word" for example. An African American uses the word, no problem. A Caucasian uses the word, inflammatory. The Caucasian’s intent is irrelevant.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-26-2005, 08:13 PM   #90
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
"Christianist" is a POLITICAL term used to distinguish between something that is necessarily Christian (belief in Christ as savior) versus a political agenda that has appropriated a version of Christianity (that women should be obediant to their husbands). one is Christian, the other is Christianist.
Your example is flawed. A rational biblical argument can be made for a wife submitting to a husband.

What you deem "necessary" for Christian belief and "political" is where you get into trouble.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com