Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[Sinfidel]

Michael wrote

Given that most theistic beliefs don't come from a solely rational place, it's hardly fair to expect a solely rational argument to change it. That doesn't mean that you can't start knocking down the walls using logic. A single conversation, hell a year's worth of conversation might not change a person's mind - that doesn't mean it's not worth it if it opens that mind to ideas and ways of thinking they didn't encounter or consider before.

Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man.—It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.—Sydney Smith.

There may be a few who finally see the light, but hardly enough to offset the fruits of Sunday School and Missionaries.

Our resident troll is more interested in trolling than discussion.

[Michael]

Sinfidel wrote

Our resident troll is more interested in trolling than discussion.

Maybe - but that doesn't preclude him from being interested in discussion in some degree. If all I ever got back in response was a mocking tone then I wouldn't bother - that isn't the case, though. Believe it or not, I've had engaging conversation here with some of our most fervent 'trolls'.

I must be doing my raving wrong or something.

[JerryJohn]

Michael wrote

Maybe - but that doesn't preclude him from being interested in discussion in some degree. If all I ever got back in response was a mocking tone then I wouldn't bother - that isn't the case, though. Believe it or not, I've had engaging conversation here with some of our most fervent 'trolls'.

I must be doing my raving wrong or something.

Yes, we can have a discussion. I have been extremely busy. The election always sways business in some ways good or bad; mine good. I'll try to post this week-end.

My main concern as a theist under a Clinton administration was that Churches would be forced by law to marry gay persons, quit preaching moral values, etc. Stuff like that.

I'm all for equal rights for LGBT people though just think preachers should be able to preach it's not in keeping with the Bible. Same with abortion. We should all have equal rights.

All I have time for now,
until we meet again Cheers!~ Perhaps someday we can have a ride in my golf cart and share a few brews , never know; weirder things have happened.

JJ

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

until we meet again Cheers!~ Perhaps someday we can have a ride in my golf cart and share a few brews , never know; weirder things have happened.

JJ

[Sinfidel]

JerryJohn wrote

I don't give a rat's ass if he said God bless America or thank God. It's private business. I just want my tax breaks to stay intact.

JJ

[Michael]

Sinfidel wrote

I'm definitely the guy in the awesome suit jacket in this scenario.

[Michael]

JerryJohn wrote

My main concern as a theist under a Clinton administration was that Churches would be forced by law to marry gay persons, quit preaching moral values, etc. Stuff like that.

I'm all for equal rights for LGBT people though just think preachers should be able to preach it's not in keeping with the Bible. Same with abortion. We should all have equal rights.

I din't know - I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand I'm all for the rights of private organisations to discriminate however they want. I'm fine with the idea of men only, women only, black only, white only clubs. The "straight marriages only" thing is simply an extension of that.
However churches that also recieve government benefits in the form of tax breaks etc I don't know if I put in that same category.
Much as public businesses and public institutions should be held to a non-discriminatory standard, I question if churches should be also. For me churches straddle the line between the two, so I could go either way on it.

[Sinfidel]

Michael wrote

I think if you were to actually look atnyour posts you would find that in general I don't respond to you. In fact, this may likely be the first - though likely at most second - time I have responded to you since you made your "comeback".

The reason is I don't generally find anything you write to be worth response either seriously or in jest. You just don't interest me as a sparring partner.

However, I do find the opportunity to troll an idiot irresistable.

Hmmmm....

Sinfidel wrote:

Our resident troll is more interested in trolling than discussion.

Michael wrote

Maybe - but that doesn't preclude him from being interested in discussion in some degree. If all I ever got back in response was a mocking tone then I wouldn't bother - that isn't the case, though. Believe it or not, I've had engaging conversation here with some of our most fervent 'trolls'.

I must be doing my raving wrong or something.

[Michael]

Well, yeah. I wasn't interested until he said something interesting. I can't remember what it was or why, though.
In fact, I dare say those two quotes support each other - I wasn't interested in coversing at the time when he came across as someone purely interested in trying to mock everything.
There likely was a topic that he brought up that piqued my interest, and that changed. I like having discussions with people. I also like not having to watch my tone while I do. That's why I like this forum.

[Michael]

Although I'm not going to pretend to be some holier-than-though type, either. I'm a huuuuge dick at times and sometimes that's fun to do as well.

[JerryJohn]

Michael wrote

Okay. Well, straight off the bat I should say that I don't care about American domestic policy. Just like I don't care about British domestic policy, or Canadian domestic policy. I'm not American, it won't affect me and it's not my country. I have said this here before. I've also said things about my political beliefs here (spoiler alert - they're probably not what you expect).

Having said all of ^ that, I can still empathise and look at the situation from within - much like I can buy in to a movie knowing it's a movie, I can buy in to a situation knowing it's not mine. I also do care about American foreign policy because that's likely to affect me and my country.

So that was a pretty long spiel just to set-up where I'm coming from, I'll admit it - but no-one has ever accused me of brevity. I type. I type, like, a lot when I post something.

Your point about having more religious people around to ensure religious freedom, maybe I'd be able to get behind if it was a multitude of religions. Even then I probably wouldn't be excited about it, but at least I could get behind your point and I generally support people's right to have their religion even if I disagree with it.

The problem is, though, that's not the case. Right now Trump is filling his cup with people from the religious side of the republicans and that's old white evangelicals.

Pence I understand for the VP because he was seriously lacking in the religious department himself and needed to bolster his religious image to grab the evangelicals for the election. That's all well and good, but now the election's over and he's stuck with the religious extremist in his inner circle.

We don't need to go into what the issues with his views are right this instant as honestly I suspect you would support a lot of them (which in and of itself is worrying enough, but that's not here or there) and it wouldn't hit the point I'm talking on. So we'll swerve for a second.

The reason it's not "helping your religious freedom to teach and preach as [you] believe" is because from everything I know (and I actually know a fair bit), that freedom has never been taken from you - and I suspect you'll want to get further in to that and we will.

Imagine for a second that when elected, Obama turned out to be a Muslim. He surrounded himself with muslim advisors. They directed policy based on their religious beliefs and put them into law.

Would you be happy? Would you be celebrating "The more religious people the better off to keep our religious freedom to teach and preach as we believe"?

Hell, let's not even use that. I don't know which one of the christianities you support but let's say Trump puts someone who is a strong Baptist in charge of, say, education - and now Baptist ideas and beliefs are put in place in the school system. Or protestant, or catholic. Pick one of the ones you're not. Imagine that the teachers are now allowed to preach catholicism to the kids. Or maybe it's Protestantism.

Are you going to be cool with that? That's my problem. Policy directed by religion - and make no mistake, the people he's putting in to power by association are the kinds of people that will make policy directed by their religion - is policy against anyone not of that religion.

And that goes directly against your idea of being able to "keep [your] religious freedom to teach and preach as we believe."

It's all well and good to support "religious" people in power when it's your religion - but remember that it might no always be the case.

Michael,

You mention brevity is not you, but it IS me so I might respond in fewer words than you.

You note in your first paragraph that you don't care about American domestic policy and it won't affect you so all in all it's really as you note of no import to you. I agree completely so therefore my first instinct it to not respond further than this but I might address a few points.

All people should be able to exercise their religious freedom and I agree with this as long at there is a separation of Church and State.

I think we'll have to see what Trump does with the religious right he is selecting as far as actual impact on religious freedom. We have had the religious left for so long now with Obama I see it no different only the other side of "the mountain so to speak" Too early for leftists to "freak out"

You note freedom has never been taken from me but I am not sure what you mean as I don't know who you believe in the US has had freedom taken away from them you might be considering. Abortion and same sex marriage is the law of the land.

I note my main issue is that my Baptist Church should not be forced to marry a gay couple nor should we be denied the right to preach abortion is against the Bible. That said God's mercy and forgiveness covers us all who repent. I believe we should be able also to preach those things are incompatible with God's Holy Word.

The issue with Obama is that he shoved his views down your throat regarding gay marriage. Clinton was going to do the same with regards to abortion. Why the hell should my hard earned tax payers money go to pay for elective abortions. She wanted to repeal the Hyde Amendment. It's an elective procedure for God's sake. So the left has been in charge for too long and people are sick of it for that and many other reasons.

I do believe we need "religious people" in office in the US to maintain the rights I noted above and in a recent post. You asked what I would think about Trump putting a Baptist in charge of education. I would love it but I do not believe our schools should be teaching Baptist teaching.

Our schools should be free from political influence in teaching. I do agree with policy directed by religion when I have the right to worship where I want and my Pastor has the right to preach what he wants regarding gay marriage and abortion from the pulpit if federal funds are not used.

We agree more than we disagree. The left has run this country for too long and we'll see what happens.

I always hold out hope until I see reasons not to. It's why I am so successful in business Michael. Attitude is 99 percent of the game.

Regards,
JJ

[Sinfidel]

Michael wrote

Although I'm not going to pretend to be some holier-than-though type, either. I'm a huuuuge dick at times and sometimes that's fun to do as well.

It is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is as unalterable as sexual orientation, and invariably accompanied by pathological lying.
The advice is "stay away", but since there is not much else going on here, why not have some fun trolling in response. Otherwise, playing the shunning game (gee, I wonder if any religious groups engage in that?) is an admission the troll has gotten under your skin, which, of course, is the intent. Sarcasm and mockery are such fun.

First there was the golf cart bought for the wife. Now, it's "my golf cart"!
Then there was the "Prosperity Gospel" Joel Osteen church - suddenly, it's "My Baptist Church". Hilarious. Savour the moments.
Of course, there's the constant braggado about his sexual prowess (gee, aren't those blow jobs contrary to the biblical prohibition against spilling the seed?) and the oft repeated "I am so successful in business", as though trying to convince himself.

[Sinfidel]

JJ wrote:

my Baptist Church

Would that be the Westboro Baptists Church?

[Sinfidel]

JJ wrote:

That said I will always be a wealthy businessman blessed by God for my great faith.

Isn't it amazing that, of all people, God has taken a shine to JJ, and showered him with prosperity, while God ignores the children in Aleppo getting killed, and horribly maimed. "Fuck 'em", says God. "I like JJ."

[Sinfidel]

JJ wrote:

That said I will always be a wealthy businessman blessed by God for my great faith. Either way, I'm good to go. Crooked Hillary won't close the tax breaks for me for her donors won't like it. Its a win-win situation for me either way.


Jeremiah 29:11New International Version (NIV)
11*For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.