Name 5 people you can’t stand thread who you don’t share a religion with

[Cerebrum123]

Yeah, but that’s not my real face (grumpy cat).

Grumpy cat is adorable! You, not so much.

[firstfloor]

you're so gosh durn repulsive.

Yeah, but that’s not my real face (grumpy cat).

[JonathanL]

Aw Chrawnus! Is it because Finland’s PKN failed to make it to the final of the European Song Contest?

I'm flattered that you think that I'm prescient, but no, it's just because you're so gosh durn repulsive.

[firstfloor]

Here's my own list, in no particular order, all of them TWebbers:

whag
firstfloor
shunyadragon
Tassman
starlight

Aw Chrawnus! Is it because Finland’s PKN failed to make it to the final of the European Song Contest?

[fm93]

Yet you're posting in this thread?

I specifically outlined the types of behaviors and why they're bad. I didn't simply go "Hey, look at this. Stupid, right? Moving on..."

There actually was an atheist version called Fundies say the Darndest Things, by a guy that used to post here a long time ago. That's where the idea of the screwballs thread came from.

I'm aware of that. But I don't believe it's justified. "Wow, those particular atheists engage in such dumb behavior with that thread of theirs. Let's create a thread of our own so we can also engage in that dumb behavior."

[JonathanL]

How many are on your ignore list?

None of them currently, but Tassman used to be, due to him doing something particularly slimy and dishonest before the Crash^TM.

[Darth Ovious]

Here's my own list, in no particular order, all of them TWebbers:

whag
firstfloor
shunyadragon
Tassman
starlight

I should not need to post any reasons for why I chose this particular list. If you're unable to see why they're the kind of people who would make most people rip out their hair in frustration you probably deserve an honorary position on my list.

ETA: removed JimL and added starlight. While I do feel JimL deserves a spot, I feel like starlight deserves it even more, and unfortunately for JimL, I can only list 5 winners.

How many are on your ignore list?

[Christy]

Seeing their behavior is what changed my mind about the acceptability of partaking in screwball threads, because I realized they were just a liberal atheist version of that. .

Yet you're posting in this thread?

There actually was an atheist version called Fundies say the Darndest Things, by a guy that used to post here a long time ago. That's where the idea of the screwballs thread came from.

[Paprika]

I honestly don't get the sort of negative attitude that seer is getting on these forums. The only thing you could possibly accuse him of is being naive and uninformed. It's kind of ironic actually that he gets called out for being out of touch with reality while ignoring the many of the people that argue with him, such as Tassman, JimL and the Pixie, are all far more slimier, narrow-minded and intellectually dishonest

It's basic group dynamics, just like how the Christians here tend to call out the non-Christians instead of other Christians.

[JonathanL]

Here's my own list, in no particular order, all of them TWebbers:

whag
firstfloor
shunyadragon
Tassman
starlight

I should not need to post any reasons for why I chose this particular list. If you're unable to see why they're the kind of people who would make most people rip out their hair in frustration you probably deserve an honorary position on my list.

ETA: removed JimL and added starlight. While I do feel JimL deserves a spot, I feel like starlight deserves it even more, and unfortunately for JimL, I can only list 5 winners.

[JonathanL]

2) seer. Part of me holds out hope that he's actually just a mean-spirited liberal who's posting as a grossly exaggerated parody of a conservative Christian. I'd be really disappointed if there's a real person who's every single negative stereotype of a conservative--a narrow-minded, fearmongering old person who's out of touch with reality.

I honestly don't get the sort of negative attitude that seer is getting on these forums. The only thing you could possibly accuse him of is being naive and uninformed. It's kind of ironic actually that he gets called out for being out of touch with reality while ignoring the many of the people that argue with him, such as Tassman, JimL and the Pixie, are all far more slimier, narrow-minded and intellectually dishonest, and definitely more out of touch with reality than seer himself. And then you get people like starlight, who's only apparent reason for being on these forums seems to be to completely validate every single one of seer's "fearmongering" () threads.

[Zymologist]

But the blog doesn't mischaracterize his arguments.

I just skimmed a post or two, and it didn't seem to be all that fair of a treatment. In fact, your comment to Paprika about making an effort to understand why people believe could seem to apply quite well to that blog as well. It just seemed odd to me to use such over-the-top harsh language against Walsh, and then link to a blog like that.

But I don't even really read Matt Walsh, and don't really care all that much.

[Paprika]

But I specifically said that I was referring to the intellectual aspect. I know empathy is often immediately associated with understanding people's emotions, but the definition actually also includes understanding people's thoughts, attitudes and experiences. That's what I had in mind. He rarely, if ever, makes any effort to understand why people intellectually believe the way they do about something, or what people have experienced that's shaped their thoughts on an issue.

And why should he?

[fm93]

Only you feels-obsessed people demand emotional regard. You preach about how argumentation should be carried out, yet you bring up the utterly irrelevant concerns about feels of the listeners that don't have anything to do with the truth-value of the arguments.

But I specifically said that I was referring to the intellectual aspect. I know empathy is often immediately associated with understanding people's emotions, but the definition actually also includes understanding people's thoughts, attitudes and experiences. That's what I had in mind. He rarely, if ever, makes any effort to understand why people intellectually believe the way they do about something, or what people have experienced that's shaped their thoughts on an issue.

It seems a bit weird to complain about Matt Walsh unfairly mis-characterizing his opponents' arguments and then link to a blog dedicated to, apparently, unfairly mis-characterizing Matt Walsh's arguments.

But the blog doesn't mischaracterize his arguments.

[Darth Ovious]

Krista's not hateful. She's an anti-feminist satirist.

been following her a while now. you should check out her feeds.

http://www.femitheist.net/2015/02/si...t-the-mrm.html
http://www.femitheist.net/2014/07/ma...-autonomy.html
http://www.femitheist.net/2014/12/on...prejudice.html
http://www.femitheist.net/2014/08/ye...alifornia.html
www.femitheist.net/p/cp-faq.html
http://www.femitheist.net/p/importan...imer-read.html
http://www.femitheist.net/2014/12/de...discourse.html

she was also doing feminist critical videos years ago. been much harsher & more elaborate since.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAJVMXkloQw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3lbwFMXVNI

&

http://ask.fm/Femitheist/answer/127737766635
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Femithe...ts/c1jxd6tdusb

etc.

I think she did claim to be e troll at one point but this after amassing a large amount of backlash for her comments. Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of her recently so I don't know what's she been doing for the last 6 months or so.