User talk:Damo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives:
One and two

Obama and Katrina[edit]

sorry to delete your "What's happening" item, but it is a duplicate of #7566--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I forgive you.
Actually I looked for it but clearly didn't go back far enough in my search. Not a new story I guess. --DamoHi 01:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua[edit]

Read the Democratic party talk page. He's more than just a "bit odd", he's a homophobic fundie! But don't block him I want to see how much crazy shit I can get him to say.ClothCoat (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Being a homophobic fundie is not grounds for blocking. Actually I don't think either side is entirely correct in that debate, as I think they are ignoring the deep divide in the Democratic Party that existed from the 1930's on between the northerners and the southerners. Guys like Paul Douglas and Richard Russell had nothing in common in domestic issues (though they were closer on foreign policy) and it was only a historical accident that they were in the same party. Regardless, we don't block good faith editors who happen to have different opinions to us unless they start vandalising the place. So far as I can tell, he is just debating issues on talk pages - he rejected an offer to make some changes to the Revelation article for instance. IF you find him annoying, don't read what he writes on talk pages. --DamoHi 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"I think they are ignoring the deep divide in the Democratic Party that existed from the 1930's on between the northerners and the southerners. Guys like Paul Douglas and Richard Russell had nothing in common in domestic issues (though they were closer on foreign policy) and it was only a historical accident that they were in the same party."
That's what we were arguing. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Now that I can actually say something in my defense, I'd point out first of all that you forgot to remove the IP block so I couldn't reply until now, the unblock did nothing. Appreciate the sentiment though Damo.

Secondly, concerning whether the roughly 50% of Americans who oppose gay marriage and 72% who support the Bible (which criticizes gay marriage) are 'homophobes', I'd point out that this seems a double standard to imply anyone critical of another's sexual lifestyle is automatically discriminatory. I would bet those leveling such a charge have no problem criticizing bestiality, adultery, prostitution, or polygamy. Why is it alright to be critical of those lifestyles but not homosexuality? They are all lifestyle choices which addict those who engage in them and which the majority of Americans think are wrong.

As I said in debate at Conservapedia on the subject:

"While I disagree with setting immoral standards for marriage, I am not convinced government should be defining marriage at all, although to remove government control of marriage would mean rewriting the tax code. I find those supportive of gay rights are ironically the least tolerant people, ironically, as they seek to force the majority of taxpayers who disagree with gay marriage in states like California to pay for school children to be taught about gay role models.[1]

They seek to sue everyone who disagrees with them just for exercising their religious rights, photographers who don't want to photograph gay weddings, doctors who don't want to perform in vitro fertilization of lesbian couples, churches who don't want to marry gays on church grounds.[2] A majority of California voters twice voted to define marriage between a man and a woman, and the gay rights movement lobbied the courts to overturn Prop 8 and 22, and now uses the public school system to teach about gay role models to public school students.

As the Brothers Winn point out, "'Suing people to get your way!' It seems like the new gay motto. 'It just doesn’t sound very tolerant to me….' 'Oh well, we’ll sue the people that think it isn’t tolerant."[3]

Ultimately, the Bible not only declares homosexuality a wrong sexual lifestyle, but other things like divorce, adultery, and bestiality. It says we are guilty before God and cannot judge others as worthy of death since we are all equally guilty (Romans 2-3). I think homosexuality is wrong but many sexual lifestyles are wrong and none of us are perfect. I do not hate homosexuals though I disagree with the lifestyle.

Homosexuality is just one of many wrong sexual behaviors which addicts and enslaves people like pornography, prostitution, adultery, etc. I do not believe we should make laws supporting it unless they are democratically passed by the majority of the country. I believe the right way is to put the issue to a vote and let the people decide, which liberals will not do because they want to dictate their beliefs as tyrants."

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I, too, find it upsetting that people are taught about role models who have sexual orientations. That's why I believe all role models should be selected from a subset of people who are asexual. I'm tired of tax dollars, in every single state, being used to teach people about straight role models, without the explicit consent of the majority of the citizenship. The only fair thing is, as I mentioned, to only discuss role models who we can be absolutely sure were asexual. --ShadowofLords (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mandating that role models be found for a specific sexual lifestyle most Americans have historically found immoral and then taught to school students with taxpayer money is what Thomas Jefferson would have called "sinful and tyrannical." To quote Jefferson from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical". Liberals only disagree with forcing one's beliefs and opinions on others when they aren't the ones doing it I guess. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Your appeal to authority on homosexuality is Thomas Jefferson, someone who was from the late 18th century and owned slaves. He isn't the best person to invoke on social issues.ClothCoat (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
He's also the one who coined the term 'separation of church and state' per his letters to the Danbury Baptists, so you can't expect me to avoid referencing his words on religious freedom if you continue to reference them. In other words, every time you mention 'separation of church and state' you yourself are invoking Jefferson's words on social issues. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That has more to do with the role of government and church, which was also agreed upon by many of the other founding fathers. All I'm saying is that taking the advice of someone on sexual matters or the like isn't a very good idea when they're from a completely different era, especially since his relationship with Sally Hemings would be considered rape today. And yes, you are a homophobe and violater of Jonanism, believing that white supremacists, abortionists, and gay rights activists are all working together against the America.ClothCoat (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so his words on government and church are alright to use even though he owned slaves, just not his words on religious freedom? I'm not seeing the distinction. Seems like you're just cherrypicking which words of Jefferson's you want to accept as valid.
Ultimately, the Democratic Party has always opposed civil rights throughout the history of the United States, they voted in higher percentages against every civil rights bill from the 13th amendment in the 1860s to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. You're the one who wants to try and claim they suddenly stopped being the party of white supremacy and racism when they made the abortion and gay rights movements less than a decade after they'd voted in higher percentages than Republicans against the Civil Rights Act. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was Jefferson's primary legislation on government and church, so if you want to say his phrase "wall of separation" regarding church and state is okay to use you should accept it's okay to use other statements of his regarding church and state, particularly from his primary legislation on the issue. The Virginia Statute was written specifically about separation of church and state. And again, if you say some of his words on separation of church and state don't apply because he owned slaves, you've just declared you can't use the phrase separation of church and state which Jefferson himself coined. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A. Their are plenty of logical arguments one could make for the separation of church and state without invoking Thomas Jefferson's personal beliefs. When I said I was talking about the other founding fathers I was also talking about the first amendment, which was agreed upon by all of the founding fathers and kept in our constitution to this very day, establishment clause and all.
B. White supremacists would never entire an "alliance" with gay rights activists, they've always been at odds because most white supremacists are also Christian nationalists (though they themselves may not be Christians). Even the Nazis persecuted gays. Also, the dixiecrat wing of the Democratic party opposed gay rights (see: Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond).
C. There are no logical arguments one can invoke against homosexuality but, as has been mentioned, there are many logical reasons to support the separation of church and state (mainly to keep theocrats and illogical laws out of power)ClothCoat (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A) Perhaps, but when you use the phrase 'separation of church and state' you are invoking Jefferson's words on religious freedom as much as I just did when quoting the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Why accept it's alright to use some of Jefferson's words on religious freedom and not others? If you say some are disqualified because he owned slaves, aren't you saying all his words are disqualified? Furthermore, does that mean you consider his writing in the Declaration of Independence invalid because he owned slaves, meaning we must return to England? (Actually, come to think of it, liberals would probably love that idea.)
B) Wrong, Christians were the ones who opposed slavery. The Underground Railroad was heavily organized by churches. The primary book which led to the Civil War and freedom for African Americans, Uncle Tom's Cabin, was authored by a Christian named Harriet Beecher Stowe. The Quakers began the first anti-slavery group. While there was of necessity some overlap between supporters of slavery and Christianity just because almost everyone until the mid-19th century was Christian, the majority of slavery opposition came from Christians opposing it on Christian principles.
C) That's your opinion that no logical arguments can be invoked against homosexuality, an opinion that arguably won't stand up to scrutiny. There are arguments, you'll just disagree with them. As for separation of church and state, the reason for originally pushing for separation of church and state as seen from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was that U.S. states were starting to imitate Catholic Europe, creating religious governments which persecuted minority denominations. The Danbury Baptists who both Jefferson and Madison took action to protect, for example, were being persecuted by the state-endorsed Anglican church of Connecticut. Because they were Baptists they could not run for public office and had to pay taxes to support a belief they disagreed with, they even were thrown into prison for their beliefs. Jefferson and Madison (see Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments) authored legislation declaring separation of church and state to ensure everyone could run for office, vote, and be free of imprisonment regardless of what their beliefs were. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, the Nazis persecuted Christians as well, see Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church. The Nazis in general persecuted a broad range of groups, anyone who was different. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
A and C)The phrase "separation of church and state" may have been championed by Jefferson but it was agreed upon b MANY enlightenment figures, such as "Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell." (That's from Wikipedia) And then it was agreed upon by those who signed the Consititution by other founding fathers. And then it stood up to scrutiny over the past couple centuries. DO YOU GET It YET THOMAS JEFFERSON IS NOT THE BE ALL END ALL TO THE PHRASE AND IDEA! I was talking about his PERSONAL BELIEFS that he didn't sign into law on matters such as homosexuality.
B)OMG Now you're just trolling me. I didn't say all Christian are white supremacists I said most white supremacists are Christian nationalists. Even most CHRISTIANS aren't Christian nationalists.ClothCoat (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The issue on Jefferson is in the primary source of the argument for why something ought be considered moral. If our primary argument for why the separation of church and state was good was "Jefferson wanted it", we would indeed be hypocrites. However, we don't (or at least shouldn't, if there are any occurrences of it). The views of Jefferson are, however, a primary source for what the views of the founding fathers were on the separation of church and state. For anyone interested, the reason why Jzyehoshua's argument fails: it is because he is using the words of a founding father for his argument why doing something is wrong. It's a classic appeal to authority. Jefferson is not a good source for morality, as evidenced by his keeping of slaves, rape of someone he owned, views on sexuality, and many other topics. Jefferson is, however, a good source on Jefferson.

Jzyehoshua is also clearly wrong to state that it was "Christians" as a broad category who opposed slavery. Clearly, there were Christians who opposed slavery. Clearly, there were also Christians who supported it. You can see where Jzyehoshua's cognitive dissonance (or trolling capacity) is showing in argument B. Paraphrasing for effect: "Why were the majority of slaveholders Christian? Because the majority of everyone was Christian! Why were the majority of abolitionists Christian? Because Christianity obviously inspires people to be anti-slavery!" Without harder data on the percentage of slaveholders that claimed to be Christian and the percentages of abolitionists that claimed to be Christian, this claim is not nearly as supported as he would like it to be (even once we have that it would be helpful to have information about the general demographics of the area as well before making such a broad claim). --ShadowofLords (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping clear this up. I've basically been trying to tell him this but he doesn't get it. I don't think he's a troll though, I think he's a true believer. He even has his own little wiki set up, which is basically Conservapedia 2.0. Seems like a lot of effort to go through just to troll us.ClothCoat (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Which raises the question, what are the percentages? The overwhelming majority of Americans then as now do claim to be Christian, today around 72%. You would need to examine whether a higher percentage of Christians as opposed to non-Christians were slaveholders or white supremacists to truly make an argument. Again, my impression has always been that most of the opposition to slavery was Christian-initiated, since churches did play a huge role in the Underground Railroad and the Quakers were the driving force early on behind the anti-slavery movement. However, it would need to be examined in percentages, but I'm not sure the data is available for analysis. However, to take the flip side, Clothcoat is criticizing Christians without taking the percentages into account either and I was just replying to that argument. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)--Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
HAHA yep you were a troll the whole time. Now you are just trying to wind me up. You had me going for a while though. HAHAHA I thought you were serious. Sorry but you tried too hard at the end there to pretend to misinterpret my argument again, because, as I said before, Christian nationalists may not be personally Christian, and most Christians are neither white supremacists nor Christian nationlaists. LOL you had me going for a while but, again, you tried too hard.ClothCoat (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's highlight some further problems with your argument, with particular focus on Slavery and Christianity, Jzyehoshua, especially for the benefit of anyone else who bothers to read this. Many of the early groups fighting against Slavery may have been abolitionists (though, despite your repetition of this claim, you fail to provide evidence, and certainly fail to provide evidence that it was primarily or entirely a Christian movement). Furthermore, there is much more evidence to show that it was not a function of ones Christianity that would decide whether one was pro- or anti-slavery, but rather a function of geography. You would build a better prediction engine for determining view of slavery based on latitude and longitude than you would on a boolean Christian or not-Christian. It is absolutely clear that Northern churches were more likely to be anti-slavery, and Southern churches were more likely to be pro-slavery. In fact, this pattern follows even within churches. The Methodist Episcopal Church split over the issue of Slavery, forming the additional Methodist Episcopal Church, South (pro-slavery). The largest convention of Baptists (the Southern Baptist Convention) was founded as an explicitly pro-slavery convention. It remains the largest today, and only apologized for its pro-slavery position in 1995.
Now, I can go further, and argue, as Frederick Douglas did (who was, to the best of my knowledge, an ordained Christian Minister), that the Christian Churches were predominantly supporters of slavery. In his own words, "[T]he church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors." Now, I will clearly admit that he thought that Christianity in the form he believed in it did not support slavery. However, he was also precisely clear that Christian churches, preachers, and ministers of the day were predominantly pro-slavery, and that it had "made itself the bulwark of American slavery". James G. Birney, another Christian, also believed that god was against slavery, but also freely admitted that Christianity in America was largely pro-slavery. Reverend Parker Pillsbury also wrote that many, if not most, ministers in his own religion were pro-Slavery. Catholics of the time viewed abolitionists as anti-Catholic. This is important especially in consideration that the church in general around this time had begun to move slightly towards an anti-slavery position.
Even further, I think I can provide evidence countering your claim that Christianity was somehow the unique opposition to Slavery. William Lloyd Garrison, a founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, of which Frederick Douglass was a member, was not a Christian, but rather a deist (It's worth pointing out that the Christian co-counder of the Anti-Slavery Society, Arthur Tappan, eventually left the organization because he didn't like the idea of extending voting rights to women, which the organization eventually had grown to support). Thomas Paine, another deist, was one of the founders of one of the earliest anti-slavery societies, The Pennsylvania Abolition Society (as it would later become known as). The organization was primarily populated by Quakers, but was a secular organization. It actually appears that the only Christian denomination to have taken a strong stand against slavery. Of course, the Quakers were thought to be radical progressives and there was a near universal dislike of them from the early days of our nation that had certainly not faded away by the time of the abolition movement.
Apologies to Damo for polluting his talk! --ShadowofLords (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add that Abraham Lincoln was not Christian when he started to fight slavery, and was (and is still thought to be) thought of as a traditional deist or, at most, a theist. He did say "the bible is not my book." ClothCoat (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Could you tell me what this means? I have no wish to start a fight over it whatever it means!--Coffee (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know if it impacts you all that much. When someone who is NOT autopatrolled makes a post it comes up with an exclamation mark next to it, so that a sysop can check it out to ensure it isn't vulgar or libellous or something. I have an idea that it makes posting easier as well, no captcha and links can get posted easier, but I don't really know. To be honest, it doesn't make much difference either way because someone will always read every post that anyone makes. I am only a bit part user these days, I'm sure ZooGuard knows the current procedure better, and if he says it's too early then I can go with that. In my day you'd be close to being a sysop by now, but I gather we have gone away from that policy these days. --DamoHi 11:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for taking the time to give a comprehensive answer. No problem - just curious.--Coffee (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, removing the autopatrol flag may be a bit too much on my part, but even in the "old days" the criterion for a sysop was hanging around for some time. The hot drink is not even close to sysopship - just handful of edits, none to mainspace, almost all to a talk page, all of that to a single talkpage during a... dispute. The evidence so far suggests a sock of another user, or at least someone who doesn't have much interest in RW outside of that dispute.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Hey, leave it as it is man! No problem to me!--Coffee (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sockpuppetry had certainly crossed my mind, though socks are not disallowed and I prefer to assume good faith. His edits are not unreasonable, though they do go against the grain here - I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Even if he is a sock; if an editor felt they wanted to express an unpopular opinion anonymously I can understand it. Anyway, unless it puts undue restrictions on him/her then it doesn't make much difference. DamoHi 12:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Just thanks, he was becoming boring--WatcherIntheDark (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

You'd think, with all the sysops around here, somebody would've blocked them sooner. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Seems to me like you could make use of a mop yourself. --DamoHi 06:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)