kaloric's Liked Comments
I think it comes down to some people not being able to distinguish between "their belief", "stupid statements made in support of their belief", and "a personal attack on the believers themselves".
Granted, all these things are somewhat linked together, but most civilized folks won't make the ad hominem attack. Many won't begrudge the belief itself. However, there are a whole lot of folks who love to see stupid statements ridiculed.
These folks just need to learn how to distinguish "ridicule or dismissal of stupid statements made in an effort to justify forcing the belief on everyone" from "persecution of the believers".
Granted, all these things are somewhat linked together, but most civilized folks won't make the ad hominem attack. Many won't begrudge the belief itself. However, there are a whole lot of folks who love to see stupid statements ridiculed.
These folks just need to learn how to distinguish "ridicule or dismissal of stupid statements made in an effort to justify forcing the belief on everyone" from "persecution of the believers".
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
"How would you all feel if Neatorama started ridiculing gay rights..."
It's kind of hard to satirize anything that's not foolish to begin with. However, if a gay rights activist said something incredibly foolish, satirize away and anyone with a brain is likely to laugh, including those who support gay rights. Well, at least I would, because I don't give anyone who says idiotic things a pass just because I happen to agree with the general ideas they hold.
The opinions being satirized here probably could escape the mockery if they were honest or remotely rational, but they're not. They're riddled with logical fallacies and ignorance. Honesty would be holding opposition to contraceptives or abortion solely on religious or moral grounds and leave it at that.
This satire really just demonstrates if you substitute a similar word or expression and the original viewpoint then turns into something that sounds incredibly foolish or bigoted, then there's a better than average chance that the original view was stupid or bigoted to begin with.
It's kind of hard to satirize anything that's not foolish to begin with. However, if a gay rights activist said something incredibly foolish, satirize away and anyone with a brain is likely to laugh, including those who support gay rights. Well, at least I would, because I don't give anyone who says idiotic things a pass just because I happen to agree with the general ideas they hold.
The opinions being satirized here probably could escape the mockery if they were honest or remotely rational, but they're not. They're riddled with logical fallacies and ignorance. Honesty would be holding opposition to contraceptives or abortion solely on religious or moral grounds and leave it at that.
This satire really just demonstrates if you substitute a similar word or expression and the original viewpoint then turns into something that sounds incredibly foolish or bigoted, then there's a better than average chance that the original view was stupid or bigoted to begin with.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Should it come as any surprise that the sort of folks who hold the same ridiculous opinions that the that infographic is satirizing are also such foolish people that they can't connect the dots for the analogy?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Having a mohel suck on your baby's freshly-mutilated penis can also cause your baby boy to be infected with herpes and die. Or just be infected with herpes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html
Circumcision is one of those religious ritualistic procedures that would never stand on its own, so it is just rationalized by touting negligible benefits. Good on a German court for recently recognizing this and basically outlawing the practice.
Not to venture off-topic, but circumcision is right along the lines of a certain motorcyclist demographic that wear patches on their leather vests proclaiming, "Loud pipes save lives!"-- while the helmets they refuse to wear are proven to save a lot more lives than the magical-thinking rationalizations behind how being noisy and obnoxious might theoretically save their lives.
Sure, circumcision might reduce incidences of certain filth-related conditions. You know what else would reduce incidences of filth-related conditions? Good hygiene. Just saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html
Circumcision is one of those religious ritualistic procedures that would never stand on its own, so it is just rationalized by touting negligible benefits. Good on a German court for recently recognizing this and basically outlawing the practice.
Not to venture off-topic, but circumcision is right along the lines of a certain motorcyclist demographic that wear patches on their leather vests proclaiming, "Loud pipes save lives!"-- while the helmets they refuse to wear are proven to save a lot more lives than the magical-thinking rationalizations behind how being noisy and obnoxious might theoretically save their lives.
Sure, circumcision might reduce incidences of certain filth-related conditions. You know what else would reduce incidences of filth-related conditions? Good hygiene. Just saying.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Do people really live in this level of fear in their own homes? It might be time to relocate.
While fanciful, most of these security designs would also be rather expensive, not to mention unsightly. Then there's the hazard angle, there are few security systems that aren't a double-edged sword, there is some level of peril posed to whoever the system is engineered to protect (children could drown in a moat, fall from a 2nd-story upside-down house window, be mauled by the dog, pull on the tear gas vines, get trapped in the holding cell, etc.).
The best security systems are the passive measures anyone can take to make their home less of a target. Keeping trees and bushes trimmed-back from doors and windows and enough exterior lighting on motion sensors to take away any cover that would-be criminals would have both during the day and night. Any sort of alarm system that would draw the attention of others. Good steel and glass security doors, and windows that hamper ingress. These things are all out there, people often choose not to install or use them correctly.
While fanciful, most of these security designs would also be rather expensive, not to mention unsightly. Then there's the hazard angle, there are few security systems that aren't a double-edged sword, there is some level of peril posed to whoever the system is engineered to protect (children could drown in a moat, fall from a 2nd-story upside-down house window, be mauled by the dog, pull on the tear gas vines, get trapped in the holding cell, etc.).
The best security systems are the passive measures anyone can take to make their home less of a target. Keeping trees and bushes trimmed-back from doors and windows and enough exterior lighting on motion sensors to take away any cover that would-be criminals would have both during the day and night. Any sort of alarm system that would draw the attention of others. Good steel and glass security doors, and windows that hamper ingress. These things are all out there, people often choose not to install or use them correctly.
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
Actually, this is precisely where the idiom came from!