Topic: Quotes we disagree with

[Desert Fox]

"It's just kids being kids"

No it's not. If you are using this adage, its probably more like "It's just delinquent, horribly behaved, shithead kids who have zero consequences or accountability being delinquent, horribly behaved....."

Not all kids behave like your little shithead kid.

The reverse always bothers me more
"We didn't do that when we were kids" or "These kinds these days."

[andrewclunn]

"It's just kids being kids"

No it's not. If you are using this adage, its probably more like "It's just delinquent, horribly behaved, shithead kids who have zero consequences or accountability being delinquent, horribly behaved....."

Not all kids behave like your little shithead kid.

The, "Boys will be boys," one gets me the most.  Oh the football team gang raped some chick?  Boys will be boys.  It's demeaning to every guy and used as if it's a real excuse for some truly fucked up shit.  If the Catholics got anything right it's that at age seven people start becoming accountable for their actions.

[GodSlayer]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So much bullshit in that.

well...they were Christians and deists, so it's probably true that they did hold those conjectures to be self-evident truths.

[Moloch]

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."

This one really bugs me.

[GodSlayer]

sick of this stupid one from the new atheists.

do they not realize that their precious Freedom From Religion Foundation exists for nothing but politicking yet (are and) deserve to be a 501(c)3? Getting involved in politics doesn't mean you're not a non-profit organization.

[Audiophile]

If someone feels offended they are offended. It is not your intention that matters.

I really hate when people say that. I've given up argueing the point that some påeople take every chance to e offended, since some people are not happy with being happy, so tp speak.

These days I just sat "I get offended by that statement! Really really much!"  The argument usually goes something like this:

A: If someone feels offended they are offended. It is not your intention that matters.

Me: I get offended by that statement! Really really much!

A: What? Why? You cant be offended by...

Me: Are we learning yet?

[GodSlayer]

Me: Are we learning yet?

I don't follow.

I also imagined their reply would have been more like 'what're you telling me for?'

[Audiophile]

Me: Are we learning yet?

I don't follow.

I also imagined their reply would have been more like 'what're you telling me for?'

 

[Johnny Slick]

Well, I think that people do get offended whether you intended offense or not, so that much *is* unfortunately true. That being said, causing offense shouldn't be the end of discussion. Why is this person getting offended at an innocuous thing? Are they really offended or are they just pretending to be so they can exit the argument (this is a tactic used by a poster on this forum, in fact)? Did you really actually say something that is offensive in another context? Was it a little of column A and a little of column B?

[pandamonium]

sick of this stupid one from the new atheists.

do they not realize that their precious Freedom From Religion Foundation exists for nothing but politicking yet (are and) deserve to be a 501(c)3? Getting involved in politics doesn't mean you're not a non-profit organization.

churches are specifically prohibited from getting involved in politics in the US. 501(c)3s are a specific non-profit designation and are seperate from whatever churches are considered.

plus the whole seperation of church and state thing that's a part of our foundational document.

I understand that this only applies to the US, but for some reason a US based foundation has a US bias.

[Ah.hell]

sick of this stupid one from the new atheists.

do they not realize that their precious Freedom From Religion Foundation exists for nothing but politicking yet (are and) deserve to be a 501(c)3? Getting involved in politics doesn't mean you're not a non-profit organization.

churches are specifically prohibited from getting involved in politics in the US. 501(c)3s are a specific non-profit designation and are seperate from whatever churches are considered.

plus the whole seperation of church and state thing that's a part of our foundational document.

I understand that this only applies to the US, but for some reason a US based foundation has a US bias.

One might wonder, if we have a separation of church and state, why does the State treat churches differently than any other non-profit?  I've always felt it somewhat odd that we in the US basically let the IRS tell us what counts as religion.

 Aside from that, I find that people who express the sentiment noted above really just mean, "stop preaching politics I don't agree with."  I rarely see anyone whose upset about Jeremiah Wright's political speeches at the pulpit complaining at Jerry Falwell's speeches or vice versa. 

[pandamonium]

eh, you have to have some legal definition of the entity in order that it isn't just a useless sentiment. and since the government makes the laws, not the church, the government makes the definition. iirc, churches' tax status is partially dependent on their staying out of politics. I don't think there's anything preventing individuals from stating their opinions, just not the organization itself endorsing a political candidate or platform. that's why the Mormon church giving money to the Prop 8 campaign was such bullshit--they were distinctly supporting a political ideology financially as well as preaching against the gays.

[andrewclunn]

I disagree pretty strongly with the government making any distinction regarding what does and doesn't qualify as a religion.  It seems kind of like affirmative action laws set up to fight racism.  Just write a law saying that no other law can even make reference to race and you're done.  Just make a law saying that no other law can make reference to an ideological label and be done with it.  That way you can outlaw and activity, but never a group or label.  Damn it, maybe we should just get some computer programmers to write up a Constitution instead of lawyers.

[Ah.hell]

eh, you have to have some legal definition of the entity in order that it isn't just a useless sentiment. and since the government makes the laws, not the church, the government makes the definition. iirc, churches' tax status is partially dependent on their staying out of politics. I don't think there's anything preventing individuals from stating their opinions, just not the organization itself endorsing a political candidate or platform. that's why the Mormon church giving money to the Prop 8 campaign was such bullshit--they were distinctly supporting a political ideology financially as well as preaching against the gays.

I don't see why there is any necessity for a distinction between a religious non-profit and a secular non-profit.  I'm pretty sure their are all sorts of non-profits that get involved in all sorts of political discussions and lobby government on all sorts of issues.  I honestly don't understand why it should matter if there's religion involved or not.

[pandamonium]

I prefer keeping religion out of politics, because I believe that religion more than other ideologies is damaging to society when it gets mixed up in trying to rule populations. at the same time, secular shouldn't dictate religious organizations. it's been decided by secular law that churches, as defined in a specific way, cannot endorse politics. non-profits are something else entirely in a legal way. you have to meet entirely different criteria to qualify as a 501c3. a lawyer could explain the difference better, I think.

eta: I think churches specifically (not religious nonprofits--iirc, something like the Salvation Army is considered a non-profit but not a church) aren't considered not-for-profit. but again, a lawyer would be better qualified to explain this.