Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

January 7, 2010 -

Orange County Register columnist Marla Jo Fisher took to her blog to issue an apology of sorts for writing that videogames were created by Satan.

Noting that her blog was inundated with comments from outraged gamers, Fisher entitles her post My Bad: Video Games Are Not From Satan, and proceeds to substitute Harry Potter’s Lord Voldemort for Satan as the specter behind evil videogames.

Fisher then resumed her rant against games and gamers, stereotyping videogame addicts as having a “deathly pallor,” who have “forgotten what daylight looks like.”

What does she think about videogamers that, inspired by their love of the medium, eventually became developers?

Also, I’m not too convinced by people who were such ardent gamers they became video game creators. That’s like saying, “Gee, I loved crack so much, I went to Colombia and started my own business and now I’m rich.”

How about the educational merits of videogames?

Video games are educational? Sorry, people, I do not believe for one second you are learning quantum physics while you are shooting down zombies. Or that you got your scholarship to MIT by using the skills you learned shooting guerrillas.

About the only insult missing from Fisher’s column is a quip about gamers living in their parent’s darkened basement—something to look forward to in her next blog perhaps.


Comments

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

No, I mean hypocritical as in criticizing a group for something while being just as bad or worse himself. Two wrongs don't make a right no matter who you think is wrong.

I also think your argument is ridiculous. So you're going to become just as bad as the bad Christians to fight them? Then you're not any better than them, and other people are going to have to stop you from doing exactly what the fundamentalist Christians are doing now. Someone has to give up the intolerance eventually, or we'll just end up in a stupid cycle where the majority gets to opress the minority.

Try fighting back by being mature, respectful, intelligent individuals instead of foaming-at-the-mouth idiots. You'll look better than the foaming-at-the-mouth fools you're up against, and you'll avoid polzarizing the issue to the point where nothing can get done.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

This made me

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

And I hate people who judge large groups based on the actions of a minority.  People like Jack Thompson... and you.

Seriously, I'm not even Christian (I'm Agnostic) and it bugs the hell out of me, because I know good Christians.  Hell, you probably know good Christians, you just haven't noticed it.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I know plenty of "good Christians" and "good" Christians.  Like my response above, the "good" ones just sit aside and let the fanatics be their voice and the voice of their faith. They enable and embolden the freaks to dominate the faith- just look at how strong the support for Creationism and anti-gay rights is in America.  The "sensible" Christians who don't buy into that bullshit are just as responsible simply because they don't do anything about it. 

If you had a sibling who, in public, started screaming and throwing their own feces around, would you not have an obligation to them and yourself to stop them? 

Any Christian who is "sensible" and puts their mythology into context has a responsibility to themselves AND Christianity to keep the lunatics in the fringe.  I have yet to see anything like this take place in the faith. 

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

There are too many people in this country who base thier behavior and moral compass on thier imaginary friend. Even worse, these people think that they have the right to FORCE the morals of this absolutely FAKE diety on to others who are smart and sane enough to see through the bullshit.

If I were to walk up to someone and start spouting crap about how I have this invisible, all powerful friend who can do anything, but doesn't, I'd probably be locked up in a psych ward. This is even moreso if I start telling people that my invisible friend tells me how to behave, and when I want something, all I need to do is drop to my knees and talk to myself to get it. I'd be in a padded room faster than you can blink.

However, since these people believe in a "Popular" Fake, Imaginary, Invisible friend, it's seen as perfectly normal to devote your lives to him. Hell, people don't even question them when they bow thier head and mutter to themselves, hoping that thier imaginary friend will get off his fake ass and help them out, rather than helping themselves.

Frankly, It's insane.

Also, I totally agree, Zero. "Sane" Christians, if they exist, need to shout down the moronic "fringe" they claim exists. They need to leave churches that preach the hateful vitriol, they need to tell the angry, hateful protesters that they are WRONG, and that thier behavior is NOT what "God" preaches. They need to abandon insane, clearly debunked ideas like the Creation Theory and embrace science and technology. They need to vocally and openly CONDEMN the stupidity of the fringe Christians, and they need to stop enabling the fringe to continue to spout thier hate and lies.

Just like I vocally condemn any gamers who step out of line and make a bad name for us, like Richard Deane Langworthy, I expect Christians to regularly condemn and voice thier opinions about the fringe.

However, I believe that Zero is right. They won't. My guess is that they have no problem with the hate and anger being spread by the "fringe", since it's directed at people and groups who they are taught to hate, like Gays.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Oh, militant aetheists, in some ways you're even funnier than the militant believers.

You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn't exist than they do in that He does.  You complain about them pushing their beliefs on you in the same breath that you try to push yours on everybody else.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn't exist than they do in that He does."

Ha...Hahaha...HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAH!! You really believe there is MORE evidence that God exists, rather than he doesn't? That, alone, makes you an idiot of such proportions that it's a waste of time to talk to you.

Suffice it to say, there are plenty of sections from the Bible, that book that is taken as God's literal word, that have been SOUNDLY disproven by Geology, Archaeology, and Science.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

The Bible is WRACKED with inconsistencies and errors. That, alone, should force you to question that this "infalliable" book, that God's word, is incorrect. The logic here is that if the Bible is literally infalliable, as most Christians believe, and if it really is God's word, then why are there mistakes in it? Why are there contradictions and discrepancies? The existence of these, alone, either prove that God, himself, if he exists, is faliable, and that major foundation of the Christian faith is incorrect, or that God doesn't exist at all, and all of this crap is just one big scam.

In addition to that, you have absolutely NO proof, ZERO, NADA that God exists. There is no way to prove or disprove such a thing, which makes it incredibly convienient to defend, but given the inconsistencies between what is taught in the Bible and in Church, and what has been discovered as real by Science and Logical research, it's enough to support the argument that Religious Faith is nothing but a steaming pile of illogical crap.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Wow, most of that stuff on that inconsistencies page that they try to bring up as an inconsistency is so paper thin that anyone with any mote of brain power can decipher it.  Such as Adam being fortold to die when he ate the apple then lived on for so many years.  It's pretty easy to see that the death being refered to was losing his place in the garden and not his physical death years later.  Then with God asking Caine where Abel was, the author thinking that this was some sort of admission on God's behalf of not being omnicient.  When I was young and I broke something in my parents' house they would ask me if I broke it, even if they damn well know I did.  It wasn't that they were trying to figure out if I did or not, but they were granting me the opportunity to come clean.

As far as your beef with thinking that Christians are all luddites who all think that the Earth is but 6000 years old, apparently you aren't aware that this isn't universally accepted in the Church.  Hence the arguments and division between young earth and old earth creationists.  But really. go on thinking that all Christians are the same and are all anti-intellectuals.  Are all jews bankers in your world also?

But before you try to come at me with labels bear in mind that I really don't consider myself a Christian.  To be quite frank I'm not sure if I consider myself to be agnostic or atheist.  I don't know what I believe.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I see your-

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.htm...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/flaws.html

and I'll call with-

www.scribd.com/doc/8126116/So-Called-Contradictions-in-Bible

www.carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/problem-genetic-improbability

I'll also suggest you watch the documentary "Expelled".  It shows how evolutionists systematically suppress any evidence that suggests intelligent design.

Just some things to think about.

 

Your Yak is Weak!

Your Yak is Weak!

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Two things.  Assuming for a moment, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God (I'm Agnostic).  It was transcribed by man, edited by man, and translated by man.  Not to mention had to be given to man in terms he, at the time, would understand.  Proving that the Bible is flawed does not prove that God does not exist.  Even when I was a practicing Christian, I never believed the Bible should be taken literally.

And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn't be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that some sort of God exists (hence, my Agnosticism), whereas actually proving something doesn't exist is generally impossible.  You yourself say that it's impossible to prove or disprove His existence, yet you seem so absolutely sure that He doesn't exist, despite admittedly not having any proof.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn't be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that God exists, whereas actually proving something doesn't exist is generally impossible.  You yourself say that it's impossible to prove or disprove His existence, yet you seem so absolutely sure that He doesn't exist, despite admittedly not having any proof."

As you have no concrete proof, I have no concrete proof. Yet, as soon as you say that, you claim that there are things in this world that SUGGEST the possibility that God exists. Guess what. There are many, MANY, MANY more things that SUGGEST that God doesn't exist.

Also, when you were a Practicing Christian, you were breaking your faith by not taking the Bible Literally. It's God's word. Most Christian Denomonations believe that everything written in the bible happened, and everything is factually correct. If you doubt any part of the Bible, you are not following your faith correctly, and might as well not believe at all.

 

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

 You lost your argument at this point.  Once you start using "suggestions" to fuel your argument rather than proof.  Suggestions are completely personal, and have no bearing in proving or disproving anything.  At this point, you're basically saying that there is no god because you yourself personally believe that there are things which suggest to you that he doesn't exist.  A logical argument this does not make.

Now don't get me wrong, people who practice religion will run with the exact same argument you've been making.  To them, there is enough to suggest that a god or many do exist, because they're also using suggestions which to them outnumber objecting views.  However, you're trying to put your own place above theirs, and you lost that attempted high ground.  Once you say that you're not running on facts, but instead feel that there are more things which suggest to you that god doesn't exist, then you make yourself to be no better or different than the people you're denouncing.  You're just simply taking up the contrary point.

Also, it's not much to say he (now an Agnostic, like myself) was once a poor Christian.  Of course he was a poor Christian!  He's now an Agnostic.  Also, your comment that "most christian denominations believe that everything in the bible ... is factually correct," is not accurate.  Not even the largest denomination (Roman Catholic) doesn't endorse that.  Pope John Paul II endorsed this when he was alive, and even went so far as to say that evolution is real and fits with the Bible when the book is looked at in a non-factual light, but rather as a book of literature.

So, stop with the diatribe.  When you WHARRGARBL like this, you make yourself to be no better than the people you try to denounce.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Frankly, I'm too tired to respond to this completely. Allow me to say, however, that I've never posited that God can be completely disproven. It's impossible to gather physical evidence on something that doesn't exist. The comment you are responding to, however, was a response to another person saying that Religious people have more evidence that "suggests" the existence of God than I have that doesn't. That is why I listed those "suggestions" that you so ephatically jumped on.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

He said no such thing.  Your bias simply put that meaning in there.

"And no, I have no proof that God exists.  If I did, I wouldn't be Agnostic, would I?  However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that God exists, whereas actually proving something doesn't exist is generally impossible." is what he said.  He's simply saying that there are things that suggest the presence of a supernatural being.  I wouldn't necessarily say that myself, but to each his own.  He's not weighing one set of "suggestions" against another, saying that there is more to prove that there is a god than there isn't one.  He wouldn't be making that argument in the first place, seeing how he claims to be an agnostic.

Plus, if you claim to have no proof, what are your grounds for argument?  You can't prove anything, so why so high and mighty with your position?  You have nothing more to stand on than someone who is religious arguing their point.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Originally Quoted by Beacon80:

"You describe God as "fake" and "imaginary", but you have even less proof that He doesn't exist than they do in that He does."

and

"However, there are things in this world that suggest the possibility that some sort of God exists (hence, my Agnosticism), whereas actually proving something doesn't exist is generally impossible."

Like I said, I was providing him "Suggestions" because he implied that "Suggestions" are perfectly valid arguments in this debate.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

While I feel your improperly giving meaning on former arguments of his with his later arguments, swiming the wrong way up the logical stream like a salmon, I'll give this one to you.  He's wrong for saying that there's more evidence in favor of one side of this argument, since there isn't.  

But as far as suggestions in this debate go, he used "suggest" to mention his own personal beliefs, but you used it to try and make a point.  From what I've read of Beacon, I don't follow his logic, but I like yours less.  I'm simply pointing out to you that if you're basing your own argument on suggestions, which you basically have to do as you personally have said that you have no proof in the matter, then you are on the same level as what you denounce.  Thus, being so vehemently against christians is no different than a christian being vehemently against atheists.  You are denouncing actions which you are personally making for your own viewpoint.

 

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I used the term less quite specifically, as neither side has any real proof (if they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation).  The way I'm seeing things (and you may disagree) is like this:

There is no proof or evidence that there is no God.  As has been brought up, it's virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

However, there are a million tiny little things that suggest the possibility of a God (and not necessarily the Christian God, just a God).  Yes, it's largely spiritual things, often anecdotal, and are hard to quantify, and maybe there's some scientific explanation behind them.  But if you have something, and you have no clue why it is this way, you can't rule out any explanation until you have a more likely one.

I used the expression "even less" because even a tiny amount is more than 0.  I've seen things and read stories and even experienced events myself that make me think there might be something Up There, but there's nothing that truly suggests there isn't other than "Well, we don't really know."

And that's really my point.  I don't have a problem with him saying he doesn't believe in God.  It's the way he phrases it as an absolute fact, every single time, like he actually knows this is true, when he has no more proof than I do.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Actually, not all christians take the bible literally. I will use the catholic church as an example. There are many stories that catholics see as metaphorical, such as the creation story or Adam and Eve. This isn't absolute law, it is just that catholics are allowed to ponder other possiblities. How else could catholics be able to believe in evolution? Of course, most of the stories are seen as literal, it is just some aren't (to us). That is also why we have a hierchy of scholars and a pope, to help find the correct interpretation.

 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Name one thing that suggest that there is no God, Goddess, or pantheon of Deities.  I want something specific, not just a lack of proof.  One thing that makes it less likely that a God exists.

And no, I did not break my faith by believing the Bible should be interpreted.  Many denominations agree that parts of the Bible are metaphors and analogies.  If you really want to get technical about it, any translation of the Bible is already being interpreted, and therefore not taken completely literally.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I've already provided you plenty. Look through those links, that show many, many flaws with the holy book Christians base thier faith off of.

My favorite:

MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
(Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)

That being said, the lack of proof is as good a suggestion that he doesn't exist as any. Occam's razor, etc.

There's also The riddle of Epicurus, a LOGICAL exercise. Just because physical evidence doesn't necessarily exist, Logic should suffice. The Burden of Proof is on you, not me. If a scientist claims there's a new species of primate, it's his job to find physical evidence and prove to his fellows that this new species exists. It's not officially recognized to exist until that evidence is found. I could claim that C'thulu exists, and is responsible for all tragedy and death in the world. That clearly doesn't make it true, and the burden to PROVE it would be on ME. If I were like you, and other Christians, I would be screaming "YOU CAN'T PROVE C'THULU DOESN'T EXIST! THEREFORE, HE MUST! ALL HAIL THE OLD ONE! ALL HAIL THE GREAT C'THULU!!" This is EXACTLY what you do when you tell me to prove to YOU that God doesn't exist.

Now that that's out there. Prove to ME that God exists, and I will recant my ways.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I counter with Pascal's Wager, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

A "LOGICAL" exercise that argues why it is in one's best interest to believe in God.

I, however, find it to be rubbish, but I simply post it because I don't like your tone and it shows that logic alone does not denounce religion.

Also, the riddle you linked is also rubbish.  It's being posed from a viewpoint that refuses to admit that if there was a god, that he'd have a greater sense of things than would be available to us.  Seeing how in most religions, gods are fairly omniscient, thus they would be privy to a greater sense of knowledge than us, thus what appears to us to be evil or the gods' unwillingness to prevent it may not actually be the case.  Not taking this into account is why his argument fails on a logical standpoint.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Pascal's Wager doesn't address the possibility of whether or not God exists, only whether or not it's a better bet to believe in God or not. So there goes THAT argument.

As far as your argument against the riddle I posted, your argument is flawed, as well. It's a well worded equivalent of the hackneyed "God works in mysterious ways" argument.

Suffice it to say, there is SO MUCH suffering, evil, anger, pain, and sickness in the world that I would be hard pressed to believe that ALL of it is intentional, and part of God's greater plan for good.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I'm coming from the standpoint of an agnostic, so it's meaningless to argue with me whether god exists or not as I'll just simply say "who knows?"  I'm simply putting forth counter points to what you seem to use to justify your stance.

I don't hold much with Pascal's wager, but that wasn't meant to address the existence of god from its onset, nor did I ever pose that was it's purpose.  I just said that it argued why, logically, it is in one's best interest to believe in a higher power.

Also, my argument, as far as I can tell, isn't flawed against the riddle.  I'm simply saying that the author failed to take into account his own ignorance, thinking that his own view of good and evil is absolute in the case of his argument.  If there were a higher power, then it certainly wouldn't work in ways that would be evident to us, especially since it would have had to do so without leaving any trace of its meddling.  So, since we can't perceive of the ways a higher power would work, then they would indeed be mysterious to us.  Failing to take this into account makes the author's riddle fail in logic.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm.
(Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life.)"

ever consider for a second that this was a METAPHOR?

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Wouldn't it be nice if you could get a fundamentalist nut to admit that?

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Hello there, I'm a fundamentalist nut, and I believe that is a metaphor.

- Stand back! I have an opinion, and I'm not afraid to use it.

- Stand back! I have an opinion, and I'm not afraid to use it.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Ah, strawmanning.  We've been over this.  Proving that the Bible is wrong (or poorly interpreted, as that's clearly supposed to be an analogy) only proves that we are falliable.

Also, your statement that the burden of proof is on me is faulty.  If I came here and said "God exists" and you said "How do you know?" then burden of proof would be on me.  Here, however, you came here and said "God does not exist", so the burden of proof is on you.

This is even more true, since I have never once claimed that God exists, merely that it's possible He does, whereas you can't go a single post without clarifying that He most certainly does not.

To take your example and apply your own logic, if a scientist believes there's a new species of primate, but cannot find any evidence, that means there is absolutely no chance there are any new species of primates.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I've already stated that I cannot actually prove he doesn't exist, since you cannot gather PHYSICAL evidence on something that doesn't exist.

I was merely providing you evidence as to why I am confident he does not. You originally stated that the Faithful have more evidence SUPPORTING his existence than I have that doesn't support it. While physical evidence DISPROVING his existence is a logical falicy, like I stated above, I've provided you with Logical exercises and the reason I don't believe in him. If somebody were to prove his existence, I'd convert, but until then, much like they would do in a Scientific study, he's classified as non-existent until such time as someone proves his existence.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

But there's a flaw in your logic.  You don't diferentiate between assumtion and belief.  Given no solid evidence, a scientist will assume X does not exist for the purposes of his experiments, but does not necessarily believe that X does not exist.

It's like life on alien planets.  We don't have any proof of it, but no true scientist would tell you that this means there isn't any, only that there might not be.

Do you see the distinction?  A true scientist always leaves room for knowledge he doesn't have.  You don't.  You flat-out say that there is no God.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

All this crap about proving whether something exists or not...

Why does it make me think of Umineko No Naku Koro Ni?

-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar
-----------------------------



"A Chrono Trigger is anything that unleashes its will or desire to change history!" -Gaspar

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

This article is to old. If you want to see a more recent example of Vald's view on religion, see the "On Games and Religion" article". One of his threads became an argument with me and starts out a little above this pic:

It continues for a while. In fact, the last post on the article is our argument.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I say there is no God. It's my belief, if you will. Given the evidence I've seen, and logical arguments I've heard and made, I am fairly confident in my opinon.

I've already said that if someone were to come along with proof that God exists, I'd alter my hypothesis. Until then, he doesn't exist.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

You clearly don't see the distinction I'm talking about, and until you do, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I see the distinction. It's an interesting comment, though, because that would imply that those who say they "Believe" God exists, like Christians, only "Assume" he exists.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

heh, unlike those "reasearchers" that used flawed studies to "prove" hypothesis, like games causing violence and what-not...

All in all, a true scientist would not be an atheist but an agnostic...

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"You know.. If you were going to respond to Zerodash, I suggest you respond to Zerodash. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted."

 

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, your highness, but I believe Zerodash posted somewhere down the line on this thread. Point taken, I'm late to the party, but I don't think I ever specifically mentioned you, and unless Zerodash posted somewhere else on this page that I haven't read yet, there are no more direct ways to contact him than by posting here.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

You can respond directly to his posts, rather than starting a new tier every time. You'd think that was obvious, since EVERY comment has a "reply" button.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"Also, when you were a Practicing Christian, you were breaking your faith by not taking the Bible Literally."

So in other words, all christians are fantacics because all christians who are sensible are bad christians and therefore don't count. Man it's like whats-his-name all over again; commentor who got banned... all i recall was that he was a militant atheiest dickhead, who always brought up his hate of other religions... pretty sure he used that same logic as you did. "Any christian who doesn't take the bible literally are bad christians"... he used that to help validate his hate for all religions and shut up all those who tried to tell him about the more sensible majority; because if you are not an ignorant, hatefilled, god fearing christian, then you are obviously not a christian. 

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I'm still astounded that some of you think we have some sort of power over the free speech of others... we're regular christians, not the Chinese goverment...

Zerodash:

"I'm talking about things like leaving congregations where the pastors/priests preach things they dont agree with- IE homophobia.  Why is most of the backlash against this fat bitch from Gamers and not offended Christians?"

Firstly, I'd like to say that most of the crazy Christians are not pastors. Jack thompson, this chick as far as I know, etc, are just people with really loud opinions. I do like that you've actually gone out and given us some example of how you think we can control others, and boycott is an option for pastors, I suppose. However, what do you expect us to do about those who don't rely on us? How do we effectively silence them?

And for your question, I want you to think about it really hard for a moment. Why would there be more gamers on that page that christians? I wonder.... hmmm.... maybe it's because.... nah, impossible.

 

I'll sleep on it and get back to you. And by 'it' I mean the question and not the 'fat bitch' (which, by the way, is a great mature way to prove your point).

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

You know.. If you were going to respond to Zerodash, I suggest you respond to Zerodash. Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Vald, your not helping the argument against the few intolerent christians if you yourself are going to be intolerant to the all christians.  Please stop mocking our faith just because a few (by few, I mean in percentage, not number) christians have became misguided. And I, as well as other christians, do cry out against the christians who give the majority a bad name (Reverand Wright comes to mind). But we can't just force them to shut the hell up. Because they make for sensational stories, they are the ones who get most of the press. Religion makes up one of four things than the news media can never get right: Religon, videogames, military, and politics. Name any others I have forgotten.

On the other hand, that was a good post on her second article. I liked it.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

If you had a sibling who, in public, started screaming and throwing their own feces around, would you not have an obligation to them and yourself to stop them?

Yes, but if it was my 18th cousin thrice removed on my mother's side, I'd probably just duck behind something and wait for someone else to take care of it.

You can't hold each and every Christian accoutable for what some nutso does.  Especially someone like this.  Regardless of how serious she is, giving her attention will only make the situation worse.  Sometimes the best action is inaction.

That being said, I have seen Christians stand up against the extremists.  After the 9/11 bombings, the 700 Club came out and said that this was an act of punishment against the gays.  The next Sunday, the Dean of my father's church (amusingly enough named "Dean") addressed his congregation and specifically denounced the 700 Club and their statements.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

There is a saying, 'No drop believes it is responsible for the flood'.

Though props to this Dean person.  This is exactly what we need more figures doing at the local level.  But not enough do.  Too many, even people in positions of power and leadership in the christian community, just sit back and say nothing and let the fringe people control the dialogue.

I have gathered that among the leadership, the is a fear regarding speaking out against the fringe for fear or being branded 'not christian enough' or a 'troublemaker', or 'xyz sympathizer', which can potentially cause them loss among their followers.  So most just stay quiet and write off the frige as 'they are not us, so I do not have to mention them' and thus take the safe/easy way out.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

I honestly think it's less 'leaders don't try to stop the fringe' and more 'they can't stop the fringe'. Think about it. That's what makes them the fringe. Others with radical (and usually misinformed) beliefs listen when people say "Hey, here are facts to the contrary, you can believe what you want, but stop afiliating yourself with us if you want to keep talking about this in public." And thusly you don't hear from them like you do the fringe.

 

Likewise, you hear about the fringe more because they're unusual. Imagine how dull this site would be if every time someone on the internet said "Eh, I kinda don't like games" it was reported on. Major news outlets HAVE to focus on the exception because otherwise people will get bored and tune out. If they interviewed the 'typical' Christian on TV, you'd get much more mild, much less exciting results that wouldn't devolve into name-calling and shouthing matches, and therefore the audiences would turn the channel.

It'd be like having an informed video game debate on the news. It would be a calm, mellow afair that would be (to the general public) quite boring as two experts debated the finer points of ESRB ratings and chosing the right game for your child. It's much more exciting to have an expert in a suit and tie say that games make people into maniacs and have the fringe gamers (the ones that give other gamers a bad name. The steriotype friendless, parent-basement-dwelling pastey-faced semi-psycho that oggles anything that has breasts) 'defend' their hobby, making the 'expert' look absolutely right.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

While it is true that they probably can not STOP the fringe, the vast majority do not even try.  

They do not even raise their voices, and often they end up using the same retoric that the fringe use, which gives the fringe a bridge to mainstream sociaity... in other words, the make themselves look mainstream to mainstream and fringe to fringe (or at least let both sides believe the are 'with them') which in the fringe's case reenforces their believe/powerstructure.  They make the fringe feel less fringe, give them the illusion that the mainstream is with them, and convinently do not bother to correct the image.

And often when you do see christian leaders activly speak out against the fringe element, you also see the mainstream leaders quietly distance themselves from them.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Than there's very little difference between you and those who think that all gamers are shut-ins or immature or potential criminals.

Seriously Christians that don't say crazy stuff like this rarely get featured in the news so you're less likely to hear about them.

----------------------------------------------------

Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

THIS!!

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

No.  No.  No.

You Christians don't do shit to keep the lunatic fringe of your faith in check.  For every Christian freak like this fat bitch and Jack Thompson, there are 10 "normal" Christians who just sit there and let them shit on the faith you supposedly love so much.

Sorry, but until I see real attempts from you at bringing Christianity into the modern era, away from the superstition and Dark Age ideals, you "sensible" Christians are just enablers. 

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

"You Christians don't do shit to keep the lunatic fringe of your faith in check."

And how would you know this?  Are you involved in the Christian community?  Do you attend churches accross the US, do you listen to Christian radio programming, read Christian books?

Your hatred of Christians seems to me irrational.

 

Your Yak is Weak!

Your Yak is Weak!

Re: Out of Touch Mom Apologizes (Sort of)

Eh, while I do not agree with most of your rant, I think you do have a point here.

Among the evangelical movement, there is a remarkable lack of responsiblity when it comes to the fringe people.  Many groups seem to behave as if they do not expect people to take what they are saying seroiusly and then disavow themselves when people actually do.. writing off the results of their behavior as 'well, those people are not true christians'.

You have churches encouraging, feeding, egging on the extremists, then stepping back when someone goes to far.  In a way it is a perfect system... poke someone else into doing your dirty work for you and walk away with clean hands when they actually do go out and, say, blow up a clinic or kill some gay people.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenMP - I love that games but damn my squadmates are bozos.09/21/2014 - 10:05pm
MaskedPixelanteSWAT teams should be banned until they; 1. Learn not to walk into enemy fire, 2. Learn to throw the flashbang INTO the doorway, not the frame and 3. Stop complaining that I'm in their way.09/21/2014 - 9:53pm
Craig R.I'm getting of the opinion that SWAT teams nationwide should be banned. This probably isn't even the most absurd situation in which they've been used.09/21/2014 - 9:26pm
Andrew EisenAnd, predictably, it encouraged more parody accounts, having the exact opposite effect than what was intended.09/21/2014 - 7:07pm
E. Zachary KnightThis is called a police state people. When public officials can send SWAT raids after anyone for any offense, we are no longer free.09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
E. Zachary KnightJudge rules SWAT raid tageting parody Twitter account was justified. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/19/illinois-judge-swat-raid-parody-twitter-peoria-mayor09/21/2014 - 6:41pm
MechaTama31quik: But even if it did break, at worst it is only as bad as the powder. Even that is assuming that it is dangerous through skin contact, which is not a given if its delivery vehicle is a syringe.09/21/2014 - 4:30pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/09/20/isis-uses-gta-5-in-new-teen-recruitment-video/09/21/2014 - 4:25pm
quiknkoldSyringes can break. And in a transcontinental delivery, the glass could've broken when crushed. I work in a mail center. Shit like this is super serious09/21/2014 - 3:25pm
E. Zachary KnightIt doesn't matter what is inside the needle. As long as it requires him to take the step of purposefully injecting himself, the threat of the substance is as close to zero as you can get.09/21/2014 - 1:27pm
quiknkoldEzach: I'm not talking about the needle. I'm talking about what's inside. Geeze. Depending on what it is, the sender could be guilty of bioterrorism.09/21/2014 - 12:51pm
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, No. That syringe is not worse than white powder or a bomb. The syringe requires the recipient to actually inject themselves. Not true for other mail threats.09/21/2014 - 12:49pm
Andrew EisenThe closest to a threat I ever received was a handwritten note slipped under my door that read "I KNOW it was you." Still no idea what that was about. I think the author must have got the wrong apartment.09/21/2014 - 12:28pm
InfophileThat's what they call it? I always called it hydroxic acid...09/21/2014 - 11:57am
MaskedPixelanteProbably dihydrogen monoxide, the most dangerous substance in the universe.09/21/2014 - 10:14am
james_fudgewell I hope he called the police so they can let us all know.09/21/2014 - 9:07am
quiknkoldIt's pretty gnarly. Depending on what it is, it could be worse than white powder or a fake bomb.09/21/2014 - 9:06am
james_fudgeI just looked it up on UPS.com09/21/2014 - 8:56am
james_fudgeand expensive for an American to ship to London.09/21/2014 - 8:55am
E. Zachary KnightThat is pretty scary. Would have been worse if it were a fake bomb or white powder.09/21/2014 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician