Poll On Blasphemy Argument

I just remembered that I have the ability to present polls. These are relatively meaningless, and can sometimes be silly, but I thought I’d try one here, as a test, to see what happens. I’m curious.

If you think my argument in the post below wasn’t cogent (and look up the word cogent first. It doesn’t mean “do you agree with the argument”.) please vote no. Otherwise, yes. There’s no middle ground. If you think there is, vote no, and leave a comment for your reasons.

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!

19 thoughts on “Poll On Blasphemy Argument

  1. Well golly-gee-willikers SI, what do you think all the atheists who come here are going to say? Of course you’ll win the poll, Shyster – the election’s rigged! Is Gideon right about you? 🙂

    I’ve got a better idea: how about an intelligent debate between you and Philly (stop laughing, Gideon, I bet they can do it) by which you defend organized disrespect and he defends unorganized disrespect? Personally, I side with him. If I were an atheist, I would “blaspheme” the shallowness of silly cultural drivel like “blasphemy day.” If you can’t refute arguments with arguments, you need more than a day to bang a drum and piss people off.

  2. Of course you’ll win the poll, Shyster – the election’s rigged!

    Hence my “meaningless” and “silly” characterizations.

    But it’s not rigged. I have no control over the vote tabulation. PollDaddy does that. And I’m not even going to vote myself.

    If you can’t refute arguments with arguments, you need more than a day to bang a drum and piss people off.

    I think the point of Blasphemy Day is that all the arguments have been refuted, in spades, but the people who need to understand that close their ears to arguments, choosing to continue to believe that there is such a thing as blasphemy. It’s like the old joke about the elephant, before you can get him to do anything, you have to hit him over the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention.

  3. I think the point of Blasphemy Day is that all the arguments have been refuted,

    SI, can you please be just a little more objective here? The arguments have been raging for 2,000+ years. You’re clearly being disingenuous here.

    As far as people who close their ears to arguments, that’s you. After hundreds of comments of misunderstanding, you reply with an ad hoc hypothesis that completely ignored the evidence. Then you closed the comment thread like Ebonmuse does when he gets frustrated.

    It’s like the old joke about the elephant, before you can get him to do anything, you have to hit him over the head with a 2 x 4 to get his attention.

    So sayeth the Lord of Lords about men like you SI, and I mean that in the most gentle of spirits.

  4. Which argument? I see an argument for blasphemy being a form of self-protection for a meme, I see the argument that a god wouldn’t need to be protected from name calling and jokes, and I see the argument that as merely an idea, god needs no special protection from insults any more than Republican ideology does. I see all three as cogent, although I find the idea of memes as a categorical abstraction and not necessarily something real, but that’s another can of worms.

    Anyway, I haven’t kept up much with recent comment threads because they’ve been thoroughly juvenile and a fucking waste of time. If I wanted to trade comments with the mentally unhinged, I have at least half a dozen individuals lying on the sidewalk or randomly shouting and shaking that I could interact with between the train station and work. I step over and by those loons, and I’ll do the same online, thank you very much.

    • “Anyway, I haven’t kept up much with recent comment threads because they’ve been thoroughly juvenile and a fucking waste of time.”

      Translation: “I can’t pull my fat ass off the couch, or the Triple McCheese out of my big face long enough to get to the computer!”

      “I have at least half a dozen individuals lying on the sidewalk or randomly shouting and shaking that I could interact with between the train station and work.”

      So, you come back at night and bugger them while they’re in a drunken stupor and can’t push you off, right, Phil?

      No, the truth of the matter is you’re just a wuss. End of story.

  5. SI,

    Here’s your original question:

    Does SI present a cogent argument against the existence of and need for the term “Blasphemy”?

    The answer is no. All you’ve done is write a blog that says blasphemy laws unnecessary because you don’t believe in God. It’s a thoroughly self-centered opinion, blanketed over a country with a diverse religious populace. It’s, “Blasphemy is unnecessary because SI’s an atheist!”

    And Philly fancies it cogent.

    • No, YOU think the answer is no because of the massive stick up your ass and refusal to give anyone here a modicum of credit unless they agree with you, and this is AFTER you have the gall to accuse other people of presenting opinion as fact. If anyone else did this I’d be shocked at their obtuseness, but you… par for the course.

      • I agree with you, TOG. I mentioned this in the past, but it’s OK for him to throw out his opinions in every comment, but my opinion is worthless, even though my opinion is usually based on very cogent (he loves that word, so I’ll keep using it) reasoning.

        A blog is nothing but a place to air one’s opinions. By it’s limitations, evidence to back up opinions are elsewhere. We can point to them, give references to them, link to them, but we cannot present our own evidence. I don’t know what he wants, after all this time and bullshit. I think he won’t be satisfied unless I publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal.

      • “I don’t believe God exists, therefore blasphemy laws are unnecessary,” is a pile of dookey, not cogency. MS Quixote could smell it all the way out there in Texas or Oklahoma or wherever he is, and rightly voted no.

        TOG,

        [Sigh…] I’ve given plenty of folks – here and elsewhere – much, much more than “a modicum of credit,” and as usual, I can prove my case with links if you’d like. Now, to date it’s true that I’ve not given you any credit, because you’ve never made an actual argument – you simply mock me while you feel fit to spew misinformation about religion and science. I’m sure you’re cool to the people you like, but towards me you come with fire and sword when you could teach and learn, and it’s our loss, my friend.

        Now, if you want to be an annoying little shadow that continually follows me around to taunt from the sidelines, well… c’est la vie. Personally, I just wish you would make an actual argument, or contribute something to this blog – ANYTHING – besides your negative opinion of me which means nothing to me. I want to see what your thoughts are – not your emotions.

        So, how about you either try engaging me in a respectful and productive discussion and see what happens, or forget about me entirely and get on with your life already? It’s short and can be taken at anytime, you know; I don’t fancy that you’d want to waste it on someone as despicable as me.

        SI,

        ..it’s OK for him to throw out his opinions in every comment, but my opinion is worthless,

        SI, please suspend your dislike of me for two seconds and just listen – your opinions are not intrinsically worthless and I have no problem with you for stating them. That’s what blogs are for, and that’s fine. What’s NOT FINE is presenting your opinions as support for logical arguments when you criticize others for doing the same. You give Christians HELL when they argue from opinion and free lunches, right? Well, I’m’a give you HELL back. Surely it’s fair, no?

        A blog is nothing but a place to air one’s opinions. By it’s limitations, evidence to back up opinions are elsewhere. We can point to them, give references to them, link to them, but we cannot present our own evidence.

        That’s such a pathetic copout I practically puked. I’m not asking you to “present your own evidence” as in something above and beyond including links.

        I don’t know what he wants, after all this time and bullshit. I think he won’t be satisfied unless I publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal.

        No journal worth its readership would accept “I don’t believe God exists, therefore blasphemy laws are unnecessary,” for one, and for two, well… I would like you to ACTUALLY READ the arguments you blindly dismiss for hundreds of comments while insulting those who make them, and when it’s pointed out that you haven’t, an apology would be appropriate IN MY OPINION (as in, not support for an argument). That’s just the tip of the iceberg. I’d also like you to finish this thing Evo started and you jumped in on, about Gideon’s “false claims about science.” Of your seven points, only one was an actual claim about science, and I don’t see that you’ve made your case at all; just gotten madder.

  6. Sorry, missed this:

    Hmmm. 3 no votes, but only two explanations. Could it be that cl voted twice from his two separate IPs? Or Gideon? He has two IPs also.

    To be honest, I don’t think I even voted. I just laughed.

  7. I answered SI’s question. What’s wrong with that? Your responses don’t even answer questions. You just talk dookey about me, but the world’s already got enough anti-cl cheerleaders. I’d at least be entertained if you would write 10% as well as Gideon. But, no.

Comments are closed.