surreptitious57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
No one behaves this way in real life. I have not seen this level of self righteous piety inside a church. It shocks the conscious to see it spewed in that forum. And to have such under the mantle of atheism, skepticism, and humanism only compounds the affront

Members of Atheism Plus are just as human as anyone else with the same emotions. They have a different mindset both collectively and individually, but that applies to all humans. They feel comfortable amongst their own just as anyone else does too. They are not displaying any behaviour that is not evident elsewhere in that respect then. So the notion therefore that they are somehow different is a fallacious one. They have a different world view for sure, but that in and of itself does not reduce their humanness one iota and neither should it either. There are far greater examples of extreme thought in the annals of human history both individually and collectively, but even those individuals would still qualify as human regardless. I would not even compare them to those but am just using the example to illustrate the point however. There are humans who think and do inhuman things to others but they are still human and I try not to make the error of assuming that everyone thinks or acts like me as the only one who does is myself. Everyone is different to everyone else and expecting them to conform to what you deem acceptable is wishful thinking

This is manifestly bullshit.

Well, of course they're human - I don't think you'll find anyone who's suggested otherwise.

However, people DO NOT behave like this in the real world because in the real world there are social repercussions.

This is not extreme thought - that's the problem. It's extreme hate. That's when thought gets shunted aside. If you can't see it - you ain't looking mate.

http://www.atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3586#p62889

"you failed to properly predict how we would react to an incredibly innocuous limerick, here's a day off to think about how to appease the kraken before we ban you for defending yourself."

Sent from my phone, somehow.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Members of Atheism Plus are just as human as anyone else with the same emotions. They have a different mindset both collectively and individually, but that applies to all humans. They feel comfortable amongst their own just as anyone else does too. They are not displaying any behaviour that is not evident elsewhere in that respect then. So the notion therefore that they are somehow different is a fallacious one. They have a different world view for sure, but that in and of itself does not reduce their humanness one iota and neither should it either. There are far greater examples of extreme thought in the annals of human history both individually and collectively, but even those individuals would still qualify as human regardless. I would not even compare them to those but am just using the example to illustrate the point however. There are humans who think and do inhuman things to others but they are still human and I try not to make the error of assuming that everyone thinks or acts like me as the only one who does is myself. Everyone is different to everyone else and expecting them to conform to what you deem acceptable is wishful thinking

What an utterly vapid and useless point to make. Here let me do a slight re-wording

NOTsurreptitious57 wrote:
Members of A Voice For Men are just as human as anyone else with the same emotions. They have a different mindset both collectively and individually, but that applies to all humans. They feel comfortable amongst their own just as anyone else does too. They are not displaying any behaviour that is not evident elsewhere in that respect then. So the notion therefore that they are somehow different is a fallacious one. They have a different world view for sure, but that in and of itself does not reduce their humanness one iota and neither should it either. There are far greater examples of extreme thought in the annals of human history both individually and collectively, but even those individuals would still qualify as human regardless. I would not even compare them to those but am just using the example to illustrate the point however. There are humans who think and do inhuman things to others but they are still human and I try not to make the error of assuming that everyone thinks or acts like me as the only one who does is myself. Everyone is different to everyone else and expecting them to conform to what you deem acceptable is wishful thinking

Just try to post that at the A+ forum in response any of their many (sometimes justified) attacks on AVFM, Let's see how long you last.

I hereby nominate this as the longest Deepity ever composed. How shall I notify Daniel Dennett?

surreptitious57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
No one behaves this way in real life. I have not seen this level of self righteous piety inside a church. It shocks the conscious to see it spewed in that forum. And to have such under the mantle of atheism, skepticism, and humanism only compounds the affront

Members of Atheism Plus are just as human as anyone else with the same emotions. They have a different mindset both collectively and individually, but that applies to all humans. They feel comfortable amongst their own just as anyone else does too. They are not displaying any behaviour that is not evident elsewhere in that respect then. So the notion therefore that they are somehow different is a fallacious one. They have a different world view for sure, but that in and of itself does not reduce their humanness one iota and neither should it either. There are far greater examples of extreme thought in the annals of human history both individually and collectively, but even those individuals would still qualify as human regardless. I would not even compare them to those but am just using the example to illustrate the point however. There are humans who think and do inhuman things to others but they are still human and I try not to make the error of assuming that everyone thinks or acts like me as the only one who does is myself. Everyone is different to everyone else and expecting them to conform to what you deem acceptable is wishful thinking

It's proper to grant all that.

But, they're goddamned mean humans.

Spearthrower wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
No one behaves this way in real life. I have not seen this level of self righteous piety inside a church. It shocks the conscious to see it spewed in that forum. And to have such under the mantle of atheism, skepticism, and humanism only compounds the affront

Members of Atheism Plus are just as human as anyone else with the same emotions. They have a different mindset both collectively and individually, but that applies to all humans. They feel comfortable amongst their own just as anyone else does too. They are not displaying any behaviour that is not evident elsewhere in that respect then. So the notion therefore that they are somehow different is a fallacious one. They have a different world view for sure, but that in and of itself does not reduce their humanness one iota and neither should it either. There are far greater examples of extreme thought in the annals of human history both individually and collectively, but even those individuals would still qualify as human regardless. I would not even compare them to those but am just using the example to illustrate the point however. There are humans who think and do inhuman things to others but they are still human and I try not to make the error of assuming that everyone thinks or acts like me as the only one who does is myself. Everyone is different to everyone else and expecting them to conform to what you deem acceptable is wishful thinking

Well of course they are human - I do not think you will find anyone who has suggested otherwise

However, people DO NOT behave like this in the real world because in the real world there are social repercussions

It is certainly easier to reference thought rather than action and in that respect you are right of course. For that reason therefore I think that they are far more comfortable within their own insulated space than outside of it and undestandly so. But I am not entirely certain that they necessarily want to change the world as the site is primarily a safe space for the marginalised to go to and feel protected and where they can reference their life experiences without exposure to prejudice or ignorance. That is the reason why it was established and so in that respect all other considerations are secondary. I have spent time there both as a poster and a lurker and that is my interpretation of what it is about

Spearthrower wrote:Oh that's it.

Now it's harassment to look at a woman who enters the room. Presumably, men should keep their eyes lowered respectfully around women.

I am never reading what these people ever write ever again.

If I do so, I think I will cancel my subscription to humanity.

I am done with my trip to the Weirdo Zoo.

I think they were talking about going somewhere and there being a group of men ogling their breasts and bottom. That is uncomfortable and it can be harassment.

Oh, yes, and I don't know what limericks are and I don't know what the Buckle one was about. I didn't understand it...what does it all mean in that context?

Imagination Theory wrote:
I think they were talking about going somewhere and there being a group of men ogling their breasts and bottom. That is uncomfortable and it can be harassment.

Where I direct my gaze is none of your concern. Ever.

This is where it gets cracked. Gaze cannot, by definition, hurt anyone. It's not harassment. It might make people feel uncomfortable, but it in the same way just being in a room full of men might make women feel uncomfortable - that doesn't make a room full of men become 'harassment'.

And I read that thread: the gaze analogy was used in reference to a completely innocent and stupid limerick. A limerick that's just like the discomfort you get when you walk into a room full of men and they look at you. That's what it said. I am not trying to make this appear pathetic - that's literally what it said.

My faith in humanity's intelligence plummeted right at that moment.

scott1328 wrote:WTF. A limerick I would not hesitate to tell my maiden aunt is sexual harassment?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3586

I mean seriously, Robert S is absolutely right about this: the A+ wankers are Portlandia Bookstore Feminists and they are why McCreight walked away from this bullshit.

So, this is sexual harassment?! How?!

Bureaucracy is a catastrophe
A waste of time for you and me

A form for formality
no tit nor tat nor cup of tea

it's elemental mediocrity
that's petty officiality

To understand bureaucracy
here's a degree in nonsensology

The bureaucrat's autocracy
infuses me with inordinacy

I'd rather follow astrology
Than deal with this bureaucracy.

Imagination Theory - sorry for the rather blunt response - precoffee level of communication. The point stands, but just imagine I said it in a more obviously attempting-to-persuade-you manner.

Even if men lower their gaze respectfully, so as not to catch a glimpse of boob or bottom, there is still a chance that one man might inadvertently raise his gaze again, thus causing horror and distress.

I suggest this: that women wear full-length voluminous gowns, which conceal their figure, plus also drape their heads with shawls, thus concealing any erotic tresses which might be tumbling down, and exciting these disgusting men.

Now, isn't this a goer? Men out there - you can look, cos there's nothing to see!

nunnington wrote:Even if men lower their gaze respectfully, so as not to catch a glimpse of boob or bottom, there is still a chance that one man might inadvertently raise his gaze again, thus causing horror and distress.

I suggest this: that women wear full-length voluminous gowns, which conceal their figure, plus also drape their heads with shawls, thus concealing any erotic tresses which might be tumbling down, and exciting these disgusting men.

Now, isn't this a goer? Men out there - you can look, cos there's nothing to see!

What's frustrating is that women in religiously repressive societies are expected to lower their gazes before men. Likewise, in tyrannies throughout history, the subservient must lower their head and deflect their gaze from their superiors.

The folks at A+theism either are ignorant of history or actively seek to become oppressive tyrants... or are just bloody ignorant and up their own arses.

The sad thing is that the brand of feminism that gets bandied about on A+ appears to completely disregard the fact that the majority of humans are sexual beings. As long as there are men and women, and all the other variants thereof, we will check each other out. I wouldn't be surprised if studies showed that 90% of checking each other out was done purely subliminally.

It seems ridiculous to have to point out that yes, I know there are men who take the piss and will struggle to tear their eyes away from the cleavage and make eye contact but the overwhelming majority of men don't behave like this. And don't women do the same? Glancing over the male body to check out broadness of shoulders, cuteness of bum, existence of six-pack? Glancing over the body and attributes of someone you find attractive, even lingering a bit over the particularly sexually evocative bits, is normal. I know I'm getting old when this stops happening to me and I'll be a little bit sad.

How do these people ever chat each other up? How do they ever get sex?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

scott1328 wrote:WTF. A limerick I would not hesitate to tell my maiden aunt is sexual harassment?

http://atheismplus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3586

I mean seriously, Robert S is absolutely right about this: the A+ wankers are Portlandia Bookstore Feminists and they are why McCreight walked away from this bullshit.

So, this is sexual harassment?! How?!

Bureaucracy is a catastrophe
A waste of time for you and me

A form for formality
no tit nor tat nor cup of tea

it's elemental mediocrity
that's petty officiality

To understand bureaucracy
here's a degree in nonsensology

The bureaucrat's autocracy
infuses me with inordinacy

I'd rather follow astrology
Than deal with this bureaucracy.

I'm really not getting this at all either WOTD, I'm maybe not deep enough, I literally have no idea how this is sexual harassment?

Maybe it is the tit nor tat part? Tit being a naughty word as well all know. XD

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Maybe it is the tit nor tat part? Tit being a naughty word as well all know. XD

Really? Are you being serious?

No...... Surely not....... I mean.. It can't be!

Of course not, that is what the XD was for. Shit if tit was what I thought was naughty I could hardly bloody speak...plus I love a certain pair of tits and the wonderful lady they are attached to.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Of course not, that is what the XD was for. Shit if tit was what I thought was naughty I could hardly bloody speak...plus I love a certain pair of tits and the wonderful lady they are attached to.

I'm heterosexual but I find myself drawn to look at nice boobs, I think I could be a lesbian if it just involved boobies

I think we can all appreciate a nice pair of boobs...well not A+ but that is their loss.

They're made to look like bums.

That was meant to be delivered in the style of Ash from The IT Crowd at the end of this clip here

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=FUcHpyOOmo4[/youtube]

Oh YouTube, you are so like a fickle lady, withholding your charms from the earnest young swains eager to unlock the secrets beneath your diaphanous gown of promise.

lol....just lol. I really do need to watch that show one day.