docrampage #fundie

docrampage #fundie scifiwright.com

The pseudo-morality of the Left is a direct response to the moral challenge created by Christianity. The Christian message of redemption and inner peace is enormously powerful when it can be expressed clearly. The purpose of pseudo-morality is to create noise to cover up that powerful message:

“They talk about love but they hate gay people! We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.”

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.”

“They talk about joy but they want you to show self control! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.

“They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.”

“They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science! We couch everything we say in scientific terms. We’re so smart!”

The Left mimics and distorts Christian morality in order to defeat Christianity. They substitute tolerance for love, self-indulgence for freedom, temporary pleasure for joy, government control for personal responsibility, and sophistry for wisdom.

It is sad how effective this strategy has been.

50 comments

old comment by Filin De Blanc

The pseudo-morality of the Right is a direct perversion of the morality espoused by Christ. The Christian message of "love thy neighbour" is enormously powerful when it can be expressed clearly. The purpose of pseudo-morality is to create noise to cover up that powerful message:

"We are in favour of marital intimacy! Never mind that we try to pass laws against gay marriage and thus forcibly deprive people of their marital intimacy."

"We're against abortion because it takes the lives of innocent children. What, you say those wars we're in killed innocent children too? Who cares about that, they were foreigners!"

"We want people to stay faithful to their partners and show self control. Just ignore serial adulterer Newt Gingrich."

"We value personal responsibility, except when it comes to big business. They should be allowed to do whatever they want with no checks to prevent them from robbing people."

"We value wisdom, as long as it's not wisdom that contradicts our holy book. That should be suppressed wherever possible lest people realize that our religion is based on a faulty text."

The Right mimics and distorts Christian morality in order to defeat freedom. They substitute intolerance for love, fascism for freedom, "necessary suffering" for joy and sophistry for wisdom.

Is it sad how effective this strategy has been.

old comment by dionysus

We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.

Considering that straight people engage in sodomy (which is defined as anything but vaginal intercourse, including anal and blowjobs) there really isn't much difference. Straight men simply have one more option but all options are equally intimate.

They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.

Actually, I'd much rather they use contraceptives honestly. But somehow I think that's also out of the question for you.

We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.

Unless you mean hanging out with the neighbor's wife at Six Flags or joining her book club we don't condone adultery any more than you do. We simply aren't willing to stone them to death over it. They're all adults and we have divorce courts so the one being cheated on can deal with this kind of thing.

We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.

I had no idea cavemen had solar power, nuclear power, and hydrogen power. Now wonder they get offended in the Geico commercials.

We couch everything we say in scientific terms. We’re so smart!

Translation: "Big werds hert mah hed!"

old comment by Mister Spak

The pseudo morality of the right is a direct response to the success created by atheism. The wealth and peace resulting from atheism is enormously powerful when it can be expressed clearly. The purpose of pseudo-morality is to convince gullible victims that christian speudo-morality has some kind of nebuous superiority to the real world benefits of atheism.

They talk about love but they say they hate the sin. They claim American freedom is based on their so called god but they pass laws that don't allow women to run their own lives!

They support environmentally destructive policies but say this is actually good for the environment because Jesus will float down from the sky and fix everything! We want to save the planet even if we return to the stone age!

They talk about science but they reject it when it contradicts their creation myth! They're so smart!

They talk about personal responsibility but then say it's gods plan that they drove drunk and killed a child! We are so holy!

The right mimics and distorts reality in order to defeat traditional American values. They hate and call it love, enforce tyranny and call it freedom, create misery and call it happiness, imaginary spook conspiracies for personal responsibility,, and goddiddit for knowledge.

old comment by Balthazar The Wise

1. Who gives a fuck what they do in the privacy of their own rooms? Of course, they'd probably pointedly deny the right to home privacy, that's my first memory of Rick Santorum, he did precisely that.

2. I'm kind of conflicted on abortion, and honestly I do believe the anti-abortion types come from a well intentioned place rather than "wanting to control women," but I'm staying neutral on the issue until God is proven to either exist or not exist.

3. Well, honestly I don't think you need to be a Jesus Freak to see that it's better to be temperate rather than wanton, though they'd probably want to turn us to borderline ascetism.

4. Regardless of where you stand on global warming, it's stupid to deny that humans can have a lasting impact upon the planet. For instance, if we fired off all our nukes, we'd probably turn the world into a wasteland in short order. The living would envy the dead. So yeah, fuck the reckless ones.

5. And on this I have to say, fuck you if you dissent against science. Unless it is with more accurate science, of course.

old comment by tmarcl

“They talk about love but they hate gay people! We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.”

Even if that were true, you haven't explained why "random acts of sodomy" would be wrong, other than to say, "Godsaidso." Unfortunately, that argument only applies to people who believe in your god.

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.”

We do want women to be free. If would be better if they (as well as men) had easier access to contraceptives and better sex education, which would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions. Unfortunately, you oppose that, as well.

“They talk about joy but they want you to show self control! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.

This is just wrong. "If it feels good do it" is not a slogan used today, and even if it were, very few people support harming others intentionally. Cheating on one's spouse hurts them.

“They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.”

No, we want to save the planet by reducing the amount of harm we're doing, and finding better ways to do the things we need to be doing. Solar power, nuclear power - those are good things. As are electric cars, etc. No one wants to live like a caveman, we just don't want to destroy our one home in the pursuit of a higher standard of living.

old comment by Fundies Make Me Sick

“They talk about love but they hate everyone who isn't a white, conservative Christian. We believe that everyone is deserving of basic human rights, dignity and respect, regardless of race, sex, religious belief, sexual orientation, etc.”

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women and think that slavery can somehow be justified. We understand that slavery is never okay and that women should be free to do with their bodies as they please, as long as its within the law.”

“They talk about joy but they want everyone who isn't like them to be miserable. We believe that everyone is entitled to right of pursuit of happiness, including the right to marry, again, within the law.

“They talk about personal responsibility but make excuses their own transgressions, past or present. Accountability applies to everyone, no exceptions.”

“They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science or logic or common sense. We at least have enough sense not to take the writings of ancient books from primitive cultures as literal truth with regard to history, science or morality.”

Fixed.

old comment by Iel

As someone who is a left- and anarchic-leaning person, the idiocy in this post is astounding.

Fundamentalist moralizing is inherently flawed -- Hell, moralizing is inherently flawed. I have very few principles (it comes with the territory of being a Slytherin), but those principles are damn enough for me.

I see no difference between sexual acts based on the genitalia or marital status of those involved, providing that everyone involved in or directly affected by those acts are okay with what's going on. It seems pointless to discriminate based on those things, considering that the first doesn't matter and the second can be easily changed.

This is an abortion thingy, isn't it? Ash, the problem here is that sapience and sentience don't appear until an actual brain forms. Up until then, the fetus is simply a mass of flesh in the process of growing into a human; at this point, it cannot be innocent or guilty of anything, because that requires actually being independently alive.

See two paragraphs back for my take on this one.

Who said anything about living like cavemen? I'm rather attached to my Internet.

And what, exactly, is wrong about intelligence or the appearance thereof? As an avowed geek, I'm a bit offended by this one.

old comment by Zagen30

That second-to-last line is so full of false dichotomies.

They substitute tolerance for love

Liberals are just as capable of love as conservatives. The key difference is that most of them have the ability to actually love someone who is notably different from themselves. It's not a substitution, it's a wider field.

self-indulgence for freedom

As opposed to the rich conservatives who indulge themselves on money they've hoodwinked from the poor. Or the fundies who indulge their desires on the basis that God will forgive them because they pray to him. Liberals want all minorities to have the freedom to do as they wish as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

temporary pleasure for joy

Atheists have much lower divorce rates than fundies. Pretty sure they have both temporary pleasure and long-term joy. Considering we have no proof of an afterlife, any arguments you make using one aren't going to work.

government control for personal responsibility

As opposed to deity control. Amazing how many things aren't your fault but God's. Also amazing how little personal responsibility so many corporate executives have when they have the opportunity to amass tons of wealth for themselves while screwing over so many others.

and sophistry for wisdom.

Much of science is very grounded in reality. It changes as we gain new knowledge.

old comment by WWWWolf

> “They talk about love but they hate gay people! We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.”

Oh, rational people can usually see the difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy. It's you who seem to have telling the two apart. (Free hint: Marital intimacy is marital intimacy, even when it involves to people of same sex.)

> “They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.”

Well, seeing you're not concerned about the costs to the innocents either...

> “They talk about joy but they want you to show self control! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.

Why can't I make my neigbour's wife happy? Not everything you do has to involve sex, you filthy-headed evil man. (In fact, if you have a clear idea what makes other people happy, life is generally somewhat trouble-free.)

> “They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.”

Compared to the US, the rest of the world have stricter environmental regulations, and we aren't living like cavemen.

> “They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science! We couch everything we say in scientific terms. We’re so smart!”

I could start analysing this comment in terms of argumentation flaws. However, since that would be too ironic, I just settle for a simpler version: your comment is quite obviously dumb, and I have no idea who you tried to impress with it.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

“They talk about love but they hate gay people! We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.”

No, we don't. That's because the idea you have about how gay relationships work is inaccurate. They are not inferior to straight relationships in any way.

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.”

If by "cost to innocents" you're referring to abortion, we believe that it isn't the government's place to enforce its own morality on the women making these decisions for themselves. I thought you were supposed to be the ones supporting small government, yes? Or is that just meaningless populist rhetoric designed to appeal to swing voters who don't pay enough attention to politics to understand the implications of what you're saying?

Oops, I've said too much!

old comment by Wehpudicabok

“They talk about joy but they want you to show self control! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.”

No we don't. We believe in relationships between consenting adults. If anyone involved doesn't consent, we condemn such behavior. This is 100% strawman.

“They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.”

Imposing higher taxes on corporations which pollute the environment doesn't exactly make us live like cavemen. This is mostly a strawman, albeit less egregious than the last one. The fact remains that if we don't take serious steps to curtail our environmental impact we will soon face a crippled world.

“They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science! We couch everything we say in scientific terms. We’re so smart!”

We make our decisions based on actual science, not just scientific terms. The fact that you can't tell the difference speaks only to your scientific illiteracy.

old comment by thatotherguy

“They talk about love but they hate gay people! We are so tolerant that we can’t even see a difference between random acts of sodomy and marital intimacy.”

You see, here's the thing. One of those things is a meaningless term. The other is marital intimacy. Sodomy doesn't actually mean anything as there is NO EVIDENCE that God struck down the inhabitants of Sodom for being gay.

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose no matter the cost to innocents.

Here's where I start looking at you cross eyed. The cost to which innocents? And what cost. Be specific, otherwise, you aren't making sense!

“They talk about joy but they want you to show self control! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, even if it involves your neighbor’s wife.

I actually chuckled a bit at that. It is clever phrasing, in spite of every thing else. I see no evidence that the Left's...I dunno...stance against people owning assault weapons is a stance against self control. As for the neighbor's wife thing. Yeah, that's morally wrong for a few reasons in my book, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. The law is ill equipped to regulate people's sex lives.

old comment by thatotherguy

“They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by making everyone live like cavemen.”

You're the ones suggesting we go back to how things were 70 years ago. And how does suggesting that people use alternative, renewable fuel sources send us back into the stone age?

“They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science! We couch everything we say in scientific terms. We’re so smart!”

I actually couch very little I say in scientific terms since I am not a scientist, and quite nearly failed my most recent science classes because...I like science from a distance but find actually studying to be beyond me. Why believe the scientists? Simple, I find that what they say is just more compelling. Plus, just because I'm not great at science doesn't mean I can't review the evidence. Science is changing to fit new evidence. You guys are not.

old comment by

“They talk about love but they hate gay people! They think that gays are incapable of marital intimacy.”

“They talk about freedom but they want to enslave women! We want women to be free to choose, since there would be no cost to 'innocents'.”

“They talk about joy but only if it's the sort of joy that they say is allowed! We want you to do whatever makes you happy, if it's safe, sane, consensual, and harms no-one."

“They talk about personal responsibility but they are destroying the planet! We want to save the planet by changing to a system which is just as comfortable for people, apart from big buisnessmen and oil company owners, but that doesn't fucking wreck everything.”

“They talk about wisdom but they don’t believe in science! We put things forward in scientific terms, with evidence, which is the best way of making an argument. They, on the other hand, commit rhetological fallacies frequently.”

old comment by TheLastCenturion

1. gays: aside from the inability to create offsrping, and assuming the two are married, there IS no difference. a male can still come to full orgasm through anal sex (stimulate the prostate), and a woman can with a woman as well. if those two people love each other, and are married "sodomy" IS marital intamicy. if they are just two people who have a one night stand, then it is just that, just like it would be if it were male female(which happens too, you know).

2. we believe each person has a right to decide what to do with their own body. a small clump of undeveloped stem cells, is not an "innocent". it is not even a fetus, and even then a fetus is a lot closer to a parasite than it is a fully sentient human being. we think that, if a woman does not want to spend 9 months of her life carrying a child, and then the following X number of years that raising the child entails, then no one should force her too. it is her decision to make and hers alone. that is what personal freedom means. i dont personally think that it is right to abort a fetus simply because it is inconvenient, but there is jack shit anyone can or should do to stop it, so i dont do jack shit. that being said, since it does take two to tango, if youcatch my meaning, i would be in favor of the father having a bit more say in the fate of the child than they currently do.(a bit, mind, not anythng like what the fundys would be in favor of.)

old comment by TheLastCenturion

3. self control: i would be terrified if everyone had no self control. that is so far from what liberals want, you could literally only get more accurate(or possibly more insane). remember before? how i was saying that we think everyone should be equal? well you dont own your wife. if you want to have sex with her, she has to consent to it. same goes for your neighbour. if he wants to have sex with your wife, she has to consent to it. the closest liberal ideal i can think of to what you said is that people should be able to just go about their day without having to fear being persecuted for race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or anything like that. of course that means that you would have to have the SELF CONTROL to not persecute anyone else, and i know how hard that is for you christians. that is not say, however, that people should not defend themselves when they need too. they totally should.

old comment by TheLastCenturion

Sorry about the multiple posts here people but i spent half an hour getting at work writing this, and im not willing to let that go to waste.

4. save the planet: you see, i never understand this argument. do you WANT to destroy the planet or something? look, next time you buy a car, buy a prius, not a hummer. get in the habit of turning lights and shit off when you leave a room. put a blue box by your back door and toss your empty coke cans in it as you go by. it is really not all that hard. then there are the things companies can do. recycled materials for example. if heinz got thier palstic for ketchup bottles from recycling facilities, that wouldcut the costs of 1extracting crude oil, refining crude oil, AND processing the refined crude into the specific kind of plastic. that is three things that you no longer have to pay for. now all you need to pay for is transport of materials. who WOULDNT want to cut 20% from the bottom line directly? in conclusion we dont want people to regress, we just want a little bit of responsibility. for fucks sake up until the 1980's everything WAS recycled. glass bottles everywhere, all of which you return for steam cleaning and recycling. in 1975 all we needed to do was cut GHG emmisions and climate shift would be a NON FUCKING ISSUE right now.

5. hey motherfucker. english is a shit language, with a few universal describing words, and a shittonne of big words that mean very specific things. if you know those words it makes speaking in this horrible bastard language significantly easier. just because we cant talk about the intracicies of reality without using some big word you never bothered to learn the meaning of, does not mean that we are a)wrong, b)lying, or c)smug/narcissistic. you christians seem to be the ones with the superiority complex, which, ironically, seems to be centered around being as ignorant and intolerant as is humanly possible.

docrampage #fundie scifiwright.com

50 comments

Confused?