(almost) one year later

Around ten months after the original post that started all this I clicked the link to see if the person replied. I find the person whom I originally addressed made up an agenda for me, which obviously must have been okay since I didn't state one on my own. He (an assumption I make based on a name that is commonly masculine) then continues to attack me for that agenda, accusing me of bringing it into play during the presentation of my point of view.

I don't want religion forced on people. I think people converted at gunpoint will make a poor contribution to any faith. But because I stand in opposition to a person who attacks another based on his belief I am obviously in support of all policies that oppress him. Rather than, you know, being against religious oppression of all forms, including those enacted by a self-perceived minority.

I propose that people should censure those who share their faith far more than they would ever censure others. If you're going to talk about God and act like he doesn't exist then you might as well not talk. Any statement outside of this should be made only on common ground; if they don't belief in God, or if they don't believe in your God, then all you may appeal to are the common laws of humanity and society. And if you're going to proclaim the superiority of man and science then you'd better show it. An exemplary point of view requires an exemplary person to support it.

People, if you expect to be taken seriously then treat me like a human being and teach me better. Acknowledge my right to believe and I'll acknowledge your right to (not) believe. If you can't show me how I'm wrong without inventing faults for me then you're obviously not fit to be my teacher.

I make no claims as to my own fitness as a teacher. I'm full of faults. But I will state that I don't wish to attack someone and say that they are ineligible for something based on the people with whom they associate, or the things that they claim to believe.

Piss me off enough and I'll start a blog.

Here is my comment which forced me to register to provide:

It was mostly driven by this previous comment.

For a quick blurb on what it is about, I do rather tire of people always attributing a superiority complex to the "Christian Right" as if it was something that solely they have. Every believes that they are qualified to speak in at least one topic with authority surpassing others. So why is it that only the Christians are pigheaded? Because everyone is a media whore, or parrots someone else's extreme viewpoint. It's disgusting, really.

The state in which I live claims that the media supports the right-wing politics. Perhaps it is that way for national media, which I don't follow much. I don't believe so, but it is possible. However, the biggest paper in the state has biased and even incorrect articles printing all the time in order to support the extreme left party. Every article I've read to date(I'm up to four in their entirety) is nothing but opinion and conjecture, with very few supporting facts. My high-school had anti-right flyers posted everywhere. Protests are stages publically and frequently, with large media support.

And everyone tells me the same exact thing.

Question 1:
Why do you hate Bush?
A: "Because he's evil."
Q2: "Why is he evil?"
A: "Because he's stupid."
Q3: "So why are we worried about him if he is so stupid?"
A: (Here's where the answers start to vary. They're all in the same vein, though) "Because he's planning to control our lives and take over the world to gain power and money!"

Honestly, "evil" may be feared justifiably. But stupid evil never gets much done. It's like how all the villains in James Bond movies have elaborate plots with sharks in moats. Nothing ever really goes wrong because they're too stupid to successfully screw the pooch.

I don't follow mainstream media engough to form a decent opinion on Bush's politics. From what I know, I judge him to have good character, which gives me a slightly favorable slant towards him. This, however, is mitigated by his complete ineptitude at public speech. Really, though, I can't honestly say whether I would have done better. So I hate to criticize the guy with my limited knowledge. And I hate to accept "facts" from someone who is trying to manipulate me into supporting them. And I think it's absolutely filthy when people besmirch one another when they can't even put up a decent argument without resulting to name calling.

To be completely fair, I get a lot of news information through someone else. I don't follow news much. But when he provides links, I go out and look up three different sources on the stuff and form an opinion on what I believe is fact. I can't say as to the veracity of the sources I'm using, as I don't know how they're biased. So I stay away from saying "this is what happened" and try to stick to ethics-based comments.

So read what I have to say and form your own opinion. If you disagree, say so. But if you have to throw mud to get it done, be prepared for me to not take you seriously. I may even ignore /ban you and/or delete your comments if you irritate me enough. Why? Because I can. And because this space is mediated by my best judgement. You've been warned, so continue and feel free to make an observation.

Am I biased? Yes, obviously. I have a brain, I form opinions, and I feel that they're reasonably accurate. This doesn't mean that I automatically assume opposing opinions as idiocy, though.

Down in Uncle Sam's bidness

I created this blog today for the express purpose of commenting on certain recent political issues. This will, of a necessity, invite comments.

Fun.