This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Pitchguest's Profile

Pitchguest's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Pitchguest

Birds evolving to fight cuckoos - last commented 20 July 2011 11:38 AM

Conservative Christians slam fantasy church service - last commented 14 April 2011 10:12 PM

More Discussions by Pitchguest

Latest Comments by Pitchguest

Go to: Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?

Pitchguest's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by Pitchguest

Comment 41 by OldGreyBob

Equating religiousness with conservatism is bigotted and insulting. Conservative libertarians atheists do exist. If Ayn Rand was alive today, I think she would be laughing and insulted at the political right and left on this issue.

Of course, people have been laughing at libertarians and Ayn Rand for over 50 years.

Conservatism is the reason social stigmas has remained for so long, because it wishes to preserve the 'status quo'. Religion is no exception to this. If we all instead motioned to move forward rather than staying in the past for the past 2000 years, maybe we would actually make some real progress. Technology is one area of this where, if we don't have conservative moves to stifle it constantly (i.e., the dark ages), it will progress - and rapidly at that - and it has.

I don't care if they're religious conversatives, or atheist conservatives, if they're conservatives they don't want to progress.

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:56:27 UTC | #927555

Go to: Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?

Pitchguest's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by Pitchguest

Comment 33 by TeraBrat

Republican =//= Conservative.

Also, please define "the Middle East and terror." Especially "terror."

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:02:50 UTC | #927525

Go to: Does Conservatism Have to Be Synonymous With Ignorance?

Pitchguest's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by Pitchguest

I think the term "conservatism" and ignorance are closely related. It's like saying traditionalist and ignorance, there are bound to be parallels. Ever since their inception, conservatives want to preserve old laws and customs. When slavery was abolished, conservatives were there. When welfare and social security were introduced, consersatives were there. If a conservative is willing to make exceptions in certain areas, then rightly that conservative is not being a conservative anymore on that issue - they are being a progressive.

To me there is nothing that speaks for that conservatives can't be nothing more than reactionary arrogant ignorami.

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:00:58 UTC | #927524

Go to: Free speech under fire

Pitchguest's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by Pitchguest

Comment 51 by jameshogg

It is also within the rights of homosexuals, women, ethnic minorities, non-believers, ex-believers and converts to live their lives in peace in this world without monstrous oppression. But the very idea, according to a good number of Muslims, could also be considered acts of "needless" button pushing, and taunting, and provoking. And they are seen as such, "causing" extremism and terror. Therefore, they would be candidates for so-called incitement just as much as a silly Halloween costume. I really, really do not see your point.

Please. I said at the moment of incitement, i.e. after the alleged choking took place. The plaintiff was clearly not interested in resolving things peacefully either, but again, to repeat, he was well within his rights to wear it. He shouldn't have gotten attacked! That is why I said the judge should have at least given the Muslim man a warning and a stern talking to (such as, if you ever do it again we will arrest you). I was sort of upset he wasn't even given that and also given pardon for the whole debacle. That was unacceptable. However considering the judge gave neither of them a fine and neither of them some 'time in the brig', it wasn't particularly unjust when the 'crime' in question was merely a brief scuffle.

Your diatribe is completely misrepresenting my point. He (the Muslim) wasn't justified in his assault, as I've said many times. Therefore your position of my argument that homosexuals would be equally deserving of incitement by Muslims is inconsequential. What I meant by the plaintiff 'pushing his buttons' is that he wasn't interested in finding a common ground (yes, despite being attacked first), only repeating the tired old chestnut 'this is America'. Then in the court proceedings making up stories (he's obviously never read the Qu'ran) about Mohammad to support him wearing the costume (which, again, he had every right to wear). They were both idiots, but as to who was in the 'right'? The plaintiff, of course.

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:40:06 UTC | #926489

Go to: Free speech under fire

Pitchguest's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by Pitchguest

Comment 52 by Militant non-stamp collector

He called the plaintiff a doofus and said if this happened in a Sharia ruled country he would be killed. The judge should be up for review for this pathetic pandering to religious sensitivities alone.

I agree.

Being offended is never a justification for violence.

I agree.

The standard the Judge has set effectively means we can't criticise or satirise religion in any way in case we might "provoke" an offended nut job out there somewhere.

I disagree. We can still criticize and satirize religion. That has never been taken away, nor will it ever be. This case is sketchy due to the religiosity of the judge himself and possibly acting in conflict of interest; something a judge must never do. However this case does not set the precedent that we are now entering a state of theocracy. To say that we are is a gross overreaction bordering on paranoia.

It highlights the broader issue of religion used as a kind of get out of jail free card and the hyper-respect afforded to it.

I disagree and you're using a non-sequitur. This is a court case. Religion may be offered undue respect in other areas, but it's clear the spectrum is changing in allowing religion to pass through the judiciary untouched. Most recently Ahlquist vs Cranston High case is proof of this. Again this particular courtroom brawl is sketchy due to the judge being a Muslim, so he shouldn't have been in charge of the proceedings in the first place.

Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:15:44 UTC | #926486

More Comments by Pitchguest