Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

35. Why do you and cleanhippie feel the need to reformulate my words?

Sun Nov 3, 2013, 03:01 PM

Nov 2013

I am saying - and I said - two things:

I'll number them in case he reads this.

1) Pornography does not equate to the Bible.

2) You do not credibly rebut perceived misogyny and sexism by distributing pornography.

I'll add one exception for those who advocate this: If your paramount goal is to attack religious belief and if that goal dominates any other concern you have, including sexism, then by all means continue to try to convince thinking people that the Bible is the equivalent of pornography and feel free to hand out gang bang porn or any other porn you like. Just realize what an ass you'll be making of yourself while doing so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Atheist group changing its message [View all] rug Nov 2013 OP

Porn for religious texs? JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #1

It was just more tone deaf sexism. rug Nov 2013 #2

It was, without a doubt. JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #3

You don't combat sexism with sexism. rug Nov 2013 #4

So you agree with their point that they are both smut? cleanhippie Nov 2013 #10

Not in the least. rug Nov 2013 #11

But you just said it was "tone deaf sexism", and that "you dont fight sexism with sexism." cleanhippie Nov 2013 #12

You're the one equating sexism to smut. rug Nov 2013 #13

No, you are. They had a "smut for smut campaign" that you said was "fighting sexism with sexism." cleanhippie Nov 2013 #14

And your analogy of the Bible to pornography is just as juvenile as theirs. rug Nov 2013 #15

Its not my analogy, its theirs. And the 'bible is sexism' is all yours. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #16

So, you do not agree with them that the Bible is equivalent to pornography? rug Nov 2013 #17

I agree with you that it is as sexist as pornography. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #18

Is that a difficult question to answer? rug Nov 2013 #19

I just answered you. I agree with you that it is as sexist as pornography. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #20

No you didn't. rug Nov 2013 #21

Yes, you most certainly did. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #22

You left out two: rug Nov 2013 #23

Again, I've answered your question twice already. This is the third time. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #24

You evaded three times. rug Nov 2013 #25

Yes, the answer is clear. I agree with you that the bible is a sexist as pornography. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #26

Agreeing with something I did not say is odd. rug Nov 2013 #27

Denying one's own words that are there for all to see is more than odd, it's disturbed. cleanhippie Nov 2013 #28

"the bible is a sexist as pornography" rug Nov 2013 #29

rug edhopper Nov 2013 #31

Sexism is more, and worse, than pornography. rug Nov 2013 #33

So you are saying that the percieved sexism of the Bible edhopper Nov 2013 #34

Why do you and cleanhippie feel the need to reformulate my words? rug Nov 2013 #35

Sorry for trying to understand what you were saying edhopper Nov 2013 #36

Just because the tactic they used was not wise, doesn't mean the Bible lacks in sexism or... Humanist_Activist Nov 2013 #44

You're right, the bible is like a whole shelf full of snuff porn. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #45

Read the Beatitudes after you're done perusing your shelf. rug Nov 2013 #47

Can't. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #48

As per the article, it really wasn't very clever at all. cbayer Nov 2013 #6

Excellent and I hope this truly represents a trend. cbayer Nov 2013 #5

OK JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #7

oh those poor "believers" have been hostile and agressive for 2000 years. they'll get over it nt msongs Nov 2013 #8

Even more reason why secular groups should seek a different path. cbayer Nov 2013 #9

Ahem... gcomeau Nov 2013 #30

Deal. There is a spectrum and generalizations from either direction really serve no purpose. cbayer Nov 2013 #32

Sounds like they were on the receiving end of the hostile aggressive attitudes. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #46

I think they found their vinegar wasn't attracting very many students. goldent Nov 2013 #37

Maybe edhopper Nov 2013 #38

If it's flies that you want. cbayer Nov 2013 #41

Not so sure, but of course here we are dealing with human students goldent Nov 2013 #42

depends on the shit edhopper Nov 2013 #43

This change reminds me of a group of rebels reorganizing into a political party. dimbear Nov 2013 #39

The Committees of Correspondence began by exchanging etchings of ankles. rug Nov 2013 #40