AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I can't even pretend that I know much about Stalin, so by all means, talk about him.

Plasma wrote:And while we're on the topic, one thing I never liked was that you rarely, if ever, hear about Hitler's good side. I mean, it's always "Hitler was the greatest evil ever", but you never hear anyone pointing out that he was pretty much a genius! I mean, his military strategy was very thorough and intelligent, he made massive progress in healthcare and automobiles, he was brilliant at actually developing Germany, and his social intelligence was world-known! To the point that most Germans did actually like him, despite all the bad things he did! ...and that's another thing you never hear about Hitler.

Actually I do say that. You are absolutely fucking correct Plasma. And you can write this down as a sign the world is going to end, because I agree with you so hard that I don't know the words to accurately express how right I think you are.

Though it generally also has the same sorta reaction as that Admin had to me mentioning that there were other similarly evil people throughout the history of the world.

Deiphobus wrote:let me ask again: are you still inclined to generalize a whole group of people that they are all just crazy or on hallucinogens? that's just as bad as that guy thinking hitler is the embodiment of evil.

Okay let me see if I got your question right.

I've met every range of Christians. In my life, I have only met one person who was a Christian that I would classify as a good person; not a person doing good because they think they are going to be rewarded.

I have also met far more Atheists, despite them being a significantly smaller portion of the population, who I would classify as good people.

The ratio is highly lopsided.

I have not met many people from other religions, because I do live in America, and Christianity is the dominate religion here. I can count the number of people I've met of other religions on two hands. So yes, you are fair in saying that I do not have grounds to express opinions about non-Christians.

Miss StarSeed wrote:The environmental factors I was refering to were things like beatings, molestation, and rape. Not that I have any proof or have done studies these have any kind of affect on a person's sexuality, but the majority of people I know that have had to deal with that have gone for the gender opposite of the one that abused them. Whether they were born into that sexuality already and their experience reinforced it, or their experience negatively affected their view of the gender, I can't say.

That's a false correlation.

It would make much more sense logically to think that gay children are more likely to be abused due to the relatively common hatred towards them. Being gay means they got abused. Not that they became gay because they were abused.

Being gay means statistically, you have a giant bullseye painted on your back to be harmed by other people for no other reason than hatred, even as a child.

I have a Muslim friend.

She was nice to me when nobody else was. c:

Miss StarSeed wrote:While we're talking about Hitler, what about Stalin? Or has he already been brought up and the topic wilted?

I like Hitler more than Stalin simply because, even though I know Hitler was more evil and bastardly, Stalin was... well, not very bright. I mean, he did bring Russia up to a more first/second world standard, but he really did not do it as efficiently as he should have. And he would've lost the war to Germany if it wasn't for the harsh winters.

Although then again, a democratic nation would've likely have lost to Germany anyway because, without as much state control as Stalin enforced, getting armies prepared to fend off an invasion would have been MUCH harder!

Crawfish wrote:I can't even pretend that I know much about Stalin, so by all means, talk about him.

Personally, I don't know much about him either. But I know a few people who say "He's just as evil as Hitler!" so I'd like to hear arguments about him.

If a conversation doesn't spring up though, I'll do some research to bring up more of a topic then, "So guys, how about that Stalin?"

On the topic of religious people, I think it all highly depends on your view of people and religion to begin with. I prefer to think people are good until I am proven otherwise. I don't really believe in god(s) so religion is kind of pointless to me. So it'll take a lot more for a religious person to make me think they are a bad person than it might take for somebody else.

Karilyn wrote:I've met every range of Christians. In my life, I have only met one person who was a Christian that I would classify as a good person; not a person doing good because they think they are going to be rewarded.

I have also met far more Atheists, despite them being a significantly smaller portion of the population, who I would classify as good people.

The ratio is highly lopsided.

On the other hand, based on the fact that you more or less said that evolution was the anti-thesis to religion, and the fact that you live in a predominantly protestant country, I'd say that most of the Christians you met were part of a minor religion with ridiculous teachings as opposed to a major, reformed one.

Fun fact: none of the seven major religions think evolution is wrong. Not even the Catholic Church.

Miss StarSeed wrote:The environmental factors I was refering to were things like beatings, molestation, and rape. Not that I have any proof or have done studies these have any kind of affect on a person's sexuality, but the majority of people I know that have had to deal with that have gone for the gender opposite of the one that abused them. Whether they were born into that sexuality already and their experience reinforced it, or their experience negatively affected their view of the gender, I can't say.

That's a false correlation.

It would make much more sense logically to think that gay children are more likely to be abused due to the relatively common hatred towards them. Being gay means they got abused. Not that they became gay because they were abused.

Being gay means statistically, you have a giant bullseye painted on your back to be harmed by other people for no other reason than hatred, even as a child.

Karilyn wrote:I've met every range of Christians. In my life, I have only met one person who was a Christian that I would classify as a good person; not a person doing good because they think they are going to be rewarded.

I have also met far more Atheists, despite them being a significantly smaller portion of the population, who I would classify as good people.

The ratio is highly lopsided.

I have not met many people from other religions, because I do live in America, and Christianity is the dominate religion here. I can count the number of people I've met of other religions on two hands. So yes, you are fair in saying that I do not have grounds to express opinions about non-Christians.

I know a family of Christians. They are good people. A part of my father's family is also Christians (one of my aunts is a nun). They love me and so do I. They are great people.

You met Christians and they were bad people. It doesn't mean that Christians are bad people.

We have two conversations going on at once

Can we please finish one before starting another?



Also why are the forums so heated tonight

Karilyn wrote:

Miss StarSeed wrote:The environmental factors I was refering to were things like beatings, molestation, and rape. Not that I have any proof or have done studies these have any kind of affect on a person's sexuality, but the majority of people I know that have had to deal with that have gone for the gender opposite of the one that abused them. Whether they were born into that sexuality already and their experience reinforced it, or their experience negatively affected their view of the gender, I can't say.

That's a false correlation.

It would make much more sense logically to think that gay children are more likely to be abused due to the relatively common hatred towards them. Being gay means they got abused. Not that they became gay because they were abused.

Being gay means statistically, you have a giant bullseye painted on your back to be harmed by other people for no other reason than hatred, even as a child.

They didn't really show signs of any kind of sexuality at that point in life though. If they did, then I'd understand your point better, but since I am speaking of people I actually know, I know they weren't like, a little boy handswatting and trying to facebattle other boys. They were just a kid, as I was. We didn't concern ourselves with sexuality at that time.

I'm a Christian.

Plasma wrote:On the other hand, based on the fact that you more or less said that evolution was the anti-thesis to religion, and the fact that you live in a predominantly protestant country, I'd say that most of the Christians you met were part of a minor religion with ridiculous teachings as opposed to a major, reformed one.

Fun fact: none of the seven major religions think evolution is wrong. Not even the Catholic Church.

If that's the official statement of the church bodies, then I'm genuinely surprised. As to this date, every religion I have yet seen considered evolution to be blasphemous.

This includes Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutheran, and Protestants. Along with a few non-denominational.

I'm aware that some Agnostic groups believe in evolution.

Squigzog wrote:I'm a Christian.

Grrl, Gork and Mork are gonna be maaaaaaad

Squigzog wrote:I'm a Christian.

Same here.

Okay, thanks for clarifying Karilyn.


and i have to agree with plasma here, stalin wasn't very smart compared to hitler.