I agree in principle, but that's simply an academic argument, which doesn't apply to reality. Beliefs almost always lead to actions. Sure, not every single time, but the minority of theists who take absolutely no action to influence others or impose their beliefs on others are not the ones we're worried about. Even the simple expression of their beliefs can prove harmful, if others are led to harmful action through it.
But you want to marginalize all
theists, even those that do not cause harm to other people or themselves.
Id est: You want to discriminate against the minorities for the mistakes that the majority made.
Also, what if their beliefs hurt themselves? Do they have a right to their beliefs then? Do we have a responsibility to save people from themselves? One could argue that we don't, but consider the effect that self-destructive behaviors can have on their loved ones. Is that not also hurting other people?
I've been locked in argument with myself regarding that long before I met you.
My grandfather used to be a drunk. My mom always tried to make him quit by telling him that it was bad for him. He argued that he could do whatever he wanted to his body. Finally I suggested she tell him that his behavior was hurting her and he reduced his drinking considerably.
That's a very good argument.
Even less actually, they still had millions of members will into the 1950's. Nobody said this would happen overnight. My very first post on this forum said it begins with educating the next generation.
So, like I said, oppressed minorities will take action, at which point we have four choices:
Continue oppressing them.
Let them do what they want.
Do what they want us to do.
Get rid of them.
You've never heard pro-drug or pro-sexism beliefs before? In my school we were taught all those beliefs, then learned why they are wrong.
I've heard of them, but those are not beliefs - they're stances on certain topics. They may be based on beliefs (I'm pretty sure that the pro-sexist movement is based on a religion), but that doesn't mean that the movement itself is a belief.
Whether they are correct or not is beside the point, they are harmful and irresponsible beliefs that must be marginalized.
They are harmful to whom? The people who perform them? Do we not have the right to freedom of action?
If you murder your girlfriend while she sleeps, she can never cheat on you again is a correct belief.
Yes, it is correct. Yet I don't do it (due to lack of current girlfriends, among other things, but that's not relevant). Should that belief be marginalized? Or should the action
And by the way, drugs do not make you see God. God is imaginary. Drugs make you believe you are seeing God.
Drugs make you see some pretty weird shit, some of which you might call "God".
Next time check a dictionary. If the definition you find there doesn't make sense in the context it was used, then you may ask for clarification.
I did. Masculinity is, more or less, "the state of being masculine", which is meaningless.
Yes, obviously it was a personal attack. You just figured that out? I believe your stance regarding confrontation with theists is weak. How you deal with confrontation in other situations is off-topic.
So you're admitting that your argument is moot. Thanks for playing.
I don't know why there is so much focus on this one comment. When Jaybwell called me an asshole, nobody asked him to define the term or defend his use of it. I was kind enough to ignore his emotional breakdowns (twice in two days he dropped f-bomb laden tirades and 'stormed out'). Mine was much less insulting and my reasons for using it were clearly stated and defended, though obviously it were just my opinion. Several others have personally attacked me using much ruder terms, and with far less cause. You don't seem to object to any of those though. Seems like a double standard.
I suggest you read your topic that got closed. I told Jay not to assume that what you meant by the OP is what he thought you meant, and not to compare you to a Nazi, as that was an appeal to emotion, not an actual argument.
As for the double standard, it's not. You are saying "You are not 'masculine', therefore your argument is invalid". They were just saying "You're an idiot. Now here's why your argument is invalid".
EDIT: It's funny how you say that aggression is not a negative trait in males (therefore it's either a meaningless trait
or a positive trait
), yet when Jay and others are aggressive, you call it "emotional breakdowns" and say that they're negative things.