Yes the folks who are taking you wrong WANT to take you wrong, they are trying to fuck up some simple clear ideas and start talking about something else.
You said what you said in that video. If we don't happen to know every part of your personality, you'll have to forgive us. Maybe if I'd watched enough of your videos I would have known what you meant. Next time, specify that your videos are only for long-time subscribers.
Perhaps it could be inferred that the possibility might exist that someone might draw the conclusion that such may have been what you might have intended to say, maybe.
Why do you assume that people are not understanding you correctly? Does it not occur to you that a lot of us understand you just fine and that the problem may actually be with your argument? For someone who sings praises about critical thought you sure seem to have an issue directing it inward. It's like you shut out serious criticism in favour of repeating yourself over and over again as if some how repetition makes fact.
@sofiarune This is not an assumption. The questions people are asking me and the arguments they are making show quite clearly that they are not understanding my position. There is no way their responses make any sense if they DID understand; their responses only make sense if they think I'm saying something other than what I am.
And the subsequent discussions I've had with these people only confirm it. So, no, this is NOT an assumption; it's based in experience.
@BionicDance Which is why you didn't respond to stealthbadger over your agnosticism thing right? He just didn't understand so it wasn't worth the time. Seriously, if your videos are being "misunderstood" so consistently that you keep making clarifications then you aren't communicating very well or your argument in and of itself is flawed.
@BionicDance I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you mean "inconsistent" there... which is why you felt the need to make a video clarifying what you meant, I'm sure.
@sofiarune No, I meant "consistent". You said, "if your videos are being "misunderstood" so consistently that you keep making clarifications", and I said that they're NOT being consistently misunderstood. I said that SOME people get what I mean without any trouble, so I don't think the problem is on MY end.
@BionicDance My mistake (see how easy that was!). Again, you're saying that some people get it therefore you're a-ok and it's everyone who doesn't "get it" that's an issue. It still seems to me that a large enough number of people are taking issue that you feel like you should clarify. If parsimony stands then it's more likely you that the issue is with you and not with the large number of people that disagree. Seriously, please thinkg about it for a moment instead of being defensive.
@sofiarune And the way I see it, you're trying as hard as you possibly can to place the blame on ME. But, frankly, if other people can figure out what I mean, I'm thinkin' the problem is elsewhere. If I'm being defensive, it's probably because of your approach to this entire issue; you're being confrontational and blaming instead of constructive and helpful, and that doesn't exactly make me wanna see your side. And it doesn't help that I genuinely DO disagree with your assessment.
@BionicDance I've just sat back and watched you blame everyone else while repeating yourself and outright ignoring serious arguments. You didn't even comment on the video stealthbadger made. His comment is (or at least was) top rated on your agnosticism video. I'm asking you to actually address some of the sturdy criticism instead of declaring that the only possible way people could disagree is if they don't understand. Spend some time considering what I said. Don't reply right away.
@sofiarune First of all, I don't even know what video you're talking about from stealthbadger. I haven't seen it, not aware of it.
Second of all, I see YOU ignoring that fact that other people DO understand what I'm talking about. How can it be MY fault if what I've said actually WORKS for some people, hmm? Maybe the problem lies in a paradigm or preconception held by the people fucking it up. I don't see YOU even CONSIDERING that possibility, so...as I see it, post-kettle-black, kiddo.
@BionicDance Remember when I asked you not to reply to me within minutes in favour of spending some time seriously considering what I said? I'm going to make that request again. Badger pmed you the link. This isn't a debate where points are scored. I'm asking you to consider some things instead of reflexively defending yourself punctuated with caps for emphasis. If you reply to me in under 2 minutes again I'll know how the whole "critical thought" thing really stands with you.
@sofiarune First of all, I have no intention of consider what you have to say so long as you are clearly not considering what I say...and you're clearly not. You're as married to it being my fault as you claim I'm married to it being NOT my fault. When you show signs of considering any OTHER possibility, maybe I'll start being interested in what you have to say.
Second, I have PMs on Friends Only to cut down on spam; if badger sent me anything, I didn't get it.
@BionicDance Wow less than two minutes. Congrats. Enjoy your time in your trench. This seems to have everything to do with maintaining some kind of reputation and nothing to do with trying to understand a thing. You'll never learn with that attitude.
@sofiarune Back at you, kiddo. YOUR attitude is a large part of why this is going nowhere you want it to. When you start showing any possibility of considering YOURSELF wrong, maybe I'll reciprocate. *rolls eyes* Acknowledge that possibility so that this isn't a purely one-side attack, and THEN we might have a discussion.
@BionicDance When did I attack you outside of describing how I perceive your reactions to people who criticise you. Am I wrong in my assessment? Do you or do you not think that everyone who disagrees is either stupid or misunderstanding you? All I did was suggest you not dismiss people as easily as you seem to. If you consider this an attack then again it's demonstrating that you're not open to critical self appraisal.
@sofiarune Yes, you ARE wrong in your assessment. People who criticize me in a non-confrontational way, with relevance and intelligence, get real answers; witness my replies to ZOMGitsCriss, for example. She managed to never get personal or obnoxious, so SHE got responses. Witness my response to devchelle2 just today; his reply was rational and reasonable, so I gave him the same back.
I think you're biased, frankly, if you've missed these examples and others. How criticism is DELIVERED matters.
@BionicDance Did you or did you not think that Criss didn't really understand? I'm not saying you don't respond to people, I'm saying I think you dismiss their arguments because you seem to think they are either stupid or that they don't understand. I'll admit I'm biased in so far as I have a position and my position is that you dismiss people for what I consider silly reasons. I don't think you spend a lot of time re-assessing your own positions. That's it, nothing more.
@sofiarune Look, I'm done talking to you...until you can accept some criticism yourself. So long as this is lock-focused on me, I'm simply not discussing it with you. Until you can acknowledge that there is a chance you DON'T have a point, I'm not talking to you.
This will NOT be one-sided, kiddo; you have to be vulnerable TOO. Get me?
So start playin' fair, or we're not having this discussion. Answer my earlier criticisms of YOUR position, or this is over. I'm not playing your game ONLY.
@BionicDance What exactly do you want me to accept? There's always a possibility of being wrong. I'm not on a pedestal here and I don't recall claiming otherwise. I also didn't say you actually do what I think you do. All of my sentences regarding you have been filled with conditionals like "seems". Again, stop being so defensive. This isn't some kind of chest beating contest. Sigh.
@sofiarune I asked you REPEATEDLY to acknowledge that you might be mistaken about your assessment of my attitude. You still have not acknowledged that as a possibility. Nor have you answered direct challenges to that effect. You're effectively making this an episode of smearing me. You're ACTING like it's a chest-beating contest. You entire APPROACH makes it precisely that. Perhaps you ought to reconsider how you've approached this discussion. Whatever your intent, you've MADE it confrontational
@BionicDance Would you like to write up a statement for me to sign?
I, sofiarune, do solemnly swear that I acknowledge the possibility that I am incorrect in my assessment of BionicDance.
Happy? I really don't care for the complaints about me smearing you by being critical. Now please go watch some sturdy criticism of you like the video by stealthbadger. I look forward to seeing how you handle it.
@sofiarune See, and it's PRECISELY statements like "I look forward to seeing how you handle it," that make me NOT want to play along with your dumb butt. Whatever you intend, that has a flavor of "neener neener" to it. "I want to see you how HANDLE IT"... *rolls eyes* Like you expect me to have a fucking cow or something.
Yeah, see...your entire approach has been snide, derisive, and confrontational, and I'm just plain done playing along. Good day.
@BionicDance Talk about preconceptions. I really do look forward to seeing how you handle it. Please stop attributing motive to me. You call me snide but you can't hear me. You're reading text and filling in perceived gaps. I'm frustrated with you at this point, nothing else.
I thought his criticism of you was very good. I'm curious as to whether or not you think he just doesn't get it or if you think he has good points.
@0:38 Yie. Again?? Your arguments here just confirmed how many of us understood you just fine the first time. What "sect" have you invented in your mind that considers itself a "we are all bound together as a team" thing? Besides, based on sheer numbers, most victims of religious stupidity are *in* the same sect as the victimizer...so this whole line of argument falls apart.
And stop labeling everybody who disagrees as being perverse or ignorant. Sry but you too readily fall in that trap.
Like thunderf00t, you do have to watch and think what you say. Im sure he had the best intentions too, but oh boy did he come across as a massive douchebag. We cant see in your head, only hear what you say, always try to be accurate when sending out dubious messages. Please.
@KarujaSipelgas The problem is that I THOUGHT this was perfectly clear. And plenty of people DID get it.
The folks who aren't getting it seems to WANT to not get it, frankly, because even after REPEATED clarification, they continue to strawman me, to run in the wrong direction with what I'm saying.
@BionicDance I guess my problem is with the word "responsible" Guilt and responsibility is determined by ones actions not by association. republicofsandles said it like this: "I think its appropriate to cite actions by theists as arguments against some of their ethics, but not as a grounds for personal responsibility."
@KarujaSipelgas Well, then my question is this: can you get past the problem with that word and address my actual point, or do I have to find a word that you find more palatable?
Cuz I'd really like to discuss the point I was making, and not have to wrangle about how it was expressed so it's more palatable to others. I mean, frankly, I don't know HOW to express my point any way other than I have; if there IS another way, I wanna know it, so the discussion can move forward.
@BionicDance You have made that point from different angles before. Most of them are fine. Add a warning sign to the video: "Possible gross misunderstanding possible by watching this video. Continue on your own peril!"
@KarujaSipelgas Really? So you couldn't figure it out without it being completely spelled out for you? Wow. Sometimes you really do need to listen to what someone is saying. I understood exactly what she was saying, because it was the only logical conclusion. It's kind of like when someone says, "everyone" when they just mean a lot of people. But some jerk will always start the argument thinking they meant everyone. Communication is two way, not just up to the speaker. Think
@Mglosk Its not that i did not understand, i try to watch it as a outsider, from a persons perspective who sees her videos the first time, who does not know her views and give critical feedback so she can better her arguments. I dont feel a need to just nod along.
Your position seemed more reasonable in the previous video. Now you seem to be saying individuals in X-sect can be held responsible for the behaviour of other individuals in X-sect, as if shared belief equals shared culpability. I hope I am taking you wrong, because that is simply not true. Individuals are only responsible for wrongs of doctrine plainly endorsed by their church. They may have a moral responsibility to "police" their own, but that holds true for atheists as well.
@BionicDance I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the first video.
Atheists DO have affiliations. Am I responsible for the actions of others in my local skeptic organization? No. Guilt by association is bogus whether atheist or theist. Individuals must personally endorse and/or defend wrongs in order to be morally culpable. Even with something like the Inquisition, you can't hold individual christians responsible, many were victim more than collaborator. Your scales are tilted.
@Blackmark52 Actually, if you've formally joined an atheist group--like I have with the Ask An Atheist radio show--and that group misbehaves in a way you do not condemn, you ARE tacitly responsible. Same if christians didn't condemn the Inquisition if they were part a sect that was formally linked to those performing it.
But the fact is that these pockets of formal atheism are not widespread like religions are, and most atheist groups I know of are VERY informal, unlike religions/churches.
@BionicDance How exactly does condemning an action absolve one of responsibility?
You seem to use a wider brush for theists than for atheists (atheist groups are VERY informal) and don’t distinguish between different levels of participation nor types of affiliation. I have long maintained that moderate christians encourage radicals by accepting the inerrancy of the bible, but to go that extra step and say they are responsible for the actions of radicals is simply unjust.
@BionicDance If you want to know a better way to explain it then, this is the way to explain it. Formal vs belief. While I may have understood what you were trying to say in the back of my mind, it still came off as something else by the words that were used. I don't claim to be a genius, or to have the right opinion simply because it's mine, but attempting to understand is better then just clicking the back button. Good day. ;)
@WinniesGottaGoPooh Atheism isn't normative in America and most of the world, so naturally those of us who don't believe in a god give the lack of a believe a cult following. Christianity itself is a massive cult. Ron Paul has a cult following, Tim Burton has a cult following, Jesus has a cult following and Richard Dawkins has a cult following. We like Dawkins because he is oftentimes correct, and the religious dismiss his knowing it as "arrogance".
As i knew it. Catholics are partly responsible for what their church does, as long as they don't revoke membership, but that doesn't mean, that they are necessarily responsible for what the IRA terrorist does.
It's also important to note, that there are degrees of responsibility, i am even responsible as a human for other humans, aren't i?! I am responsible for the sake of humanity, that people get away from the delusion, that is called religion. Only to a degree, of course.But BD is right here.
I find a lot of theists I've seen have been aside, holding no ties to anything, while we may hold one common belief in a Christian God, there's nothing else that ever made us allies. All the opinions differed, all the ideals differed. I may still call myself a Christian, and I may or may not be according to some people, but I've felt more allied with atheists and such, and others I've met have been the same. It's not that I completely disagree, I just think there's more grey to it.
@Mastertaima The problem is that many people--yourself included--are not SEEING the gray I include in what I'm saying.
I speak VERY SPECIFICALLY about affiliation, about allegiance; you're responsible for that to which you have allied yourself. That means that if you've allied yourself to a tiny sect of a larger group, you're not necessarily responsible for the larger group; it depends on circumstances, it DEPENDS on the gray.
Why are people NOT seeing this in what I'm saying? It's THERE.
@BionicDance I haven't though, those people I speak about I couldn't care less about. So I'm not understanding how I owe them anything, or belong to them, when I really could care less about them then well, anyone else. I don't see much difference in believing in something, or not believing in something, when there's literally nothing else in common with the other people that believe, or don't.
@BionicDance While I may believe in the christian God, I may find Buddhist values to be what I follow, or perhaps I believe in nirvana, or karma, whatever, what group am I under? I'm honestly just curious, maybe I'll find others that believe like me if someone tells me what category I'm supposed to fall under. Anyways, I believe I'm understanding what you're saying, but the way it's coming off, whether wanted or not, is no matter what, theists are allied together in some way, in reality, not all
@Mastertaima Well, I can't really help the way it's coming off. I'm using words that mean what I mean; if people are misinterpreting and not listening to clarification, that's pretty much on them at this point.
I agree to a point, I've seen theists like this. But I still have to disagree because I've never been. I never have been allied with any sect of Christians, I have no church, and tend to disagree with most people in churches. If it comes down to it, it's simply my parents who I am affiliated with, because they're the only people that had any impact on my christian beliefs. Even there, many of the beliefs change. I may not be understanding correctly everything, but at least I'm attempting to.
@Anghellik9 I brought up allegiance, I brought up affiliation...I don't see how people thought I was speaking more broadly than "the group to which you have become allied".
@BionicDance *pees in pants, then flees in fear* I have been reading the comments here, and I think we need a way of beaming thoughts into the viewer... wait, that would be bad. Or would it? *twiddles thumbs with an evil grin*.
i didn't see your original video in the light that some folks did. that said, i don't think anyone should be presumed to adhere to the beliefs (or actions) of the group they may be seen as part of.
@gothatfunk But GTF...they do more than simply adhere to beliefs, don't they?
They pay tithes, they lend moral support, they lend political support, they advocate.
This goes beyond personal responsibility; people lend support to those who misbehave, and in that way they do, in fact, bear some of the responsibility, do they not?
well then, by that logic, every war crime committed by (or under) the george bush regime is the responsibility of every american - especially AFTER the 2004 election. after all, we live in a country where leaders are freely chosen, & even if we do not vote, that may be seen as tacit approval.
i get where you are coming from here, but my firm belief is that you cannot hold an entire group responsible for the actions of individual members, nor are individuals culpable for the actions of a group.
@gothatfunk Actually, I'd say that those war crimes ARE the responsibility of every American...and some of us do NOT like what was done in our names. That's why we protested the war, to voice our opposition to what was done in our names, to take responsibility by telling those in charge to knock it the hell off.
You see, as much as you CAN hold a whole group responsible for the actions of individual members, as members yourselves, you can TAKE responsibility by opposing those individuals.
well K8, with respect, i cannot agree. if captured by an american hating terrorist while travelling, they would not give a rat''s ass about my vote for the other guy, or my marching in the pre-war Stop The War marches, or my advocacy for withdrawl. i'm an american, so i am to blame, according to the terrorist mentality. that's a mentality i do not share.
opposing bad actions is requisite, i agree, but to people who think groups are homogenous entities, its not sufficeint. IMO its faulty logic.
@gothatfunk But, GTF...what does this terrorist you're describing have to do with what I'M advocating? That's not the position I hold, that's not what I'm advocating here. So I'm not seeing whatever it is you're seeing here...it's like you're transferring the terrorist's mentality onto MY point, basically setting up a strawman.
And I respect you and your mental capacity, so I can only assume it's a miscommunication or a paradigm problem; we're not communicating properly somewhere, I think.
Most religious people haven't joined a damn thing, they've simply been born to religious parents and indoctrinated. To join a religion is almost never a decision, informed or otherwise.
And no, even people of the same religion aren't bound together by a common set of beliefs. There are as many ways to believe, as there are believers.
@SAsgarters The vast majority of Christians, I say Christians because they are the vast majority of the people I talk to, tell me that they will always believe, regardless of what they are told. That is where the conscious choice comes in.
@SAsgarters You actually do have to make a conscious choice. Do I continue believing what I believe or do I look further into what is being said to me?
I still disagree, but I think most of the confusion is coming from the distinction between being responsible and being indifferent. If you're a catholic who doesn't protest the sheltering of pedophiles then that doesn't make you responsible but it doesn't make you blameless either. That, I think, is where the confusion lies.
Dance, I like your videos, the fact that not all your subscribers are going to agree with you on every point shouldn't be taken so much to heart :)
If I suspect something unseemly, all I can do is report it to as many people as I can. What happens afterwards is up to them. If nothing changes later, try again. Don't expect someone else to report it. But, what if I find myself unable to report due to fear or some other inadequacy?
So you are saying what I thought you're saying. Catholicism is one 'sect' of christianity so by what you've just said every single catholic, all one BILLION of them, are responsible for the acts of the pedophile priests right?
You said it. you're not talking about all religious people, you're talking about those of the same sect. well catholicism is one sect. all catholics, ALL of them, are part of one single sect.
@Scarletpooky *facepalm* What I'm talking about are people who are affiliated, people who are allied to each other. People to whom there is a reasonable connection.
If you want to interpret that too broadly, that's up to you, but you're obviously STILL missing my message. *rolls eyes*
@Scarletpooky So if you've paid tithes to the catholic church, if you've given them your support, you have NO responsibility for how they use that support? *raised eyebrow* Really?
@Scarletpooky Do you DENY that there is some culpability here? That if one does not speak out, they are giving tacit approval to those to whom they are allied?
@BionicDance but there ARE catholics who are speaking out and condeming those priests. There is outrage amongst many catholics. Many had no idea that it was happening so, to answer your question, if they had no prior knowledge then they have NO responsibility just because they're members of the same sect as long as they condem those priests when they do find out
Simply being part of the same sect does not automatically make them responsible, that's guilt by association
@Scarletpooky So there ARE Catholics who are speaking out...GOOD. That means THEY actually understand the point I'm making and agree with it. I applaud those Catholics.
The ones who had no idea? They're still culpable; they gave their support. The question is what they do AFTER they find out what was done in their name, with their tacit support. Culpability does not just have to be explicit.
Furthermore, this misses the larger point about atheists not having this kind of affiliation.
@BionicDance "They're still culpable; they gave their support."
Seriously? so supporting a sect that officially says child rape is wrong makes them culpable when someone rapes a child?
Responsibility comes with knowledge. It's daft to say that someone is responsibly for the actions of someone else when they don't even have knowledge of those actions...
I would agree though with tacit approval/acceptance if they say nothing after they have knowledge
@Scarletpooky No, responsibility comes with SUPPORT. If you gave your money to a group, and that group does something disgusting with it, you supported them, you gave them the means to do what they did. That makes you responsible, even though you had no idea what they'd do with the money.
Now, your last sentence...? WE AGREE...except that you give your tacit support even without your knowledge. That's just simply a fact. Having knowledge just increases your culpability, it does not create it.
@BionicDance so I guess you'll be advising people to never give money and support to any and all group/ organisation/ charity/ trade union/ etc because if someone there missuses those funds (without knowledge or concent) they share responsibility
or are you making a special exception that it only applies to religious groups?
Question for clarification purposes regarding your point: would, in your view, Michael Vick's teammates be responsible for his dog fighting in the same manner as Quakers are responsible for other Quakers? If not, then could you please explain the distinction,or the meaning that I am missing.
Keight? Religious people can read "Here's how you shall own your slaves" as "Thou shalt not own slaves". If they can misinterpret blatant statements, are you really surprised at what they can do with a bit of ambiguity?
Also, whenever someone sees my clever suggested outro, they should totally check out my channel. Because, clearly, I'm an entertainment genius who is criminally under-subscribed :P
So if you are fan(member) of a sportsteam, and some hooligans (also members of the same sportsteam) should you be apologizing for their behaviour? I also find it funny from someone who ascribe to the idea of people being their own god, that people ought to take distance from the religion that they (per definition as stated above) is not part of, hence being their own god. Should Ken Miller speak up against every wrong thing the catholics do? And where does it end?
I get your point. It was quite clear. But one has to ask; are all Muslims responsible for 911? Or is that just guilt by association? Do they have any more responsibilty than the average person for the behaviour of others professing a similar ideology?
@Templetonq Isn't it nice to have bad guys again? Ever since that Holocaust thing, it's just not fashionable to accuse the Jews of wanting to take over the world.
What you mean is religious people are responsible for the actions of their sect as a whole. You can't say that every Catholic is responsible when ONE Catholic robs a convenience store. You can't say that all Orthodox Jews are responsible when ONE Orthodox Jew rapes someone. But if it's something that happens over and over again in the same sect, especially by leaders of the sect, the followers have an obligation to speak up rather than sit back and watch it happen.
Yes, religionists today did not take part in the Holy Inquisition's crimes, they just stand by the way of 'thinking' that created it and sponsored it.
And they are the ones paying the salaries of priests and ministers , elters etc. so they can continue to brain wash youn people, not to mention sexually, phisically, and mentaly abusing them.
you could have made a 30 second video because , once you said "i can only assume the ones that take me wrong, WANT to take me wrong"!!! it's not only easy to understand, but if someone didn't and you replied and explained to them what you meant, from that point on , it makes no sense to go back to their original thought! Rock on and tell them to fuck off!!!
Been there, done that. I forget which one but at least one of my videos was a retake because at one point I was so pissed off I was worried I might actually hurt the listener's ears.
We as atheists may not be required to keep each other in check because we have not joined a group and simply have the same point of view on the subject of god. But i take a little bit of pride in knowing that another atheist will point me in the right direction if i step out of line and under certain conditions, back me up. This is something that we do not need a church for or an all knowing sky daddy to tell us to do.
Grumpy! Such a wonderful word and I think that having an umpteenth take where one can regard back to the grumpy and the WWF moments in it is a beautiful intro.
Agreed! If you are a catholic and you know there is a systematic attempt to keep sexual abuse quiet and that doesn't bother you enough to complain or speak up, then you are as culpable as the villiagers in WW2 germany who saw the trains go by in the morning and the smell of burning flesh rise in the evening. If you know an atrocity is being commiting by those you support and you do not oppose them then you are culpable, if not to blame.
I'm not sure I agree. If I'm Catholic and a Catholic priest molests a child, I'm not responsible for them doing that. I should certainly try to stop it from happening if not simply because it's the right thing to stop them then because it reflects badly on something I hold dear (my religion) if I don't, but I can't control the actions of others and I shouldn't be held responsible unless I aid them in their actions.
@CuriousMoth I say that if you lend support to the Catholic church, you are--however tacitly--endorsing its behavior. And if you want the organization you'e affiliated with to NOT be giving shelter to these pedophiles, you DO have a responsibility to speak up.
@BionicDance Maybe Catholicism was a bad example '~'
What I mean is, it's not your responsibility if someone in your religion does something malign and you, and your leaders, denounce it and try to prevent it. You're no more responsible than anyone outside of your religion for the actions of affiliated individuals.
@BionicDance But if it's just individuals within that organisation, while others in the organisation denounce the actions of those individuals, does that not change things?
@BionicDance K. Just wanted to get that clarified lol. I was thinking you were saying completely different on your video because your statement was to broad >.>
@Tyrian1991 I still don't see how people could think that, frankly. Not without thinking I'm a total asshole or an idiot. C'mon...gimme some credit, here.
@BionicDance I never thought you were a total asshole or anything like that. I love your videos and frankly they keep me from boredom most of the time lol. But misunderstandings do happen especially on the internet.
@CuriousMoth that would depend upon whether you support crimens solicitamus (sp) and whether you would shelter or cover-up the behaviour of said priest.
@jimthepleb Well BD's right about the Catholic church. Its leaders attempted to cover the whole thing up and its leaders are the ones who'll get most of the money you donate and who add your name to the weight of their political clout.
@CuriousMoth oh believe me i am no fan of the church:) indeed i find it odd that some of my family have stayed in it despite what they know of what has happened, to me it seems like a bizarre form of cognitive dissonance, a sort of, hate the sin not the sinner to a factor of 9000
So your saying all those people who can't read your mind and go off the words you actually said in the video are dumb asses. I actually don't believe you, I think you meant exactly what you said in the video when you were saying it, then after people gave you crap about it you realized it was dumb, and now your pretending more specificity was implied, as if it was said clearly, which it wasn't at all. Not Buyin it. Not for a dollar. lol.
@DarkFantasyvids Then you're PRECISELY the kinna person I was talking about: the one who WANTS me to be a villain. *rolls eyes*
You don't have to believe me...but I'm telling the truth, an the evidence is right in this video, in the clips from the other video I editing into my mini-rant here. If you can't see it, then you're either fooling yourself or you're a chowderhead. Pick one.
@BionicDance You just told me in the comments in your last video that this is true about all theists: "They have dogma in common, holy days in common, holy buildings in common, leaders in common, values in common. They are more than just people with a single belief in common" "They".. If your not going to be more specific then continue to expect people to misconstrue what your saying. People can't read your mind, Stop engaging in rhetorical generalizations if your tired of it.
I joined FFRF and love it and agree with everything they do...
Snakekilla12 1 month ago in playlist watch later2
Yes the folks who are taking you wrong WANT to take you wrong, they are trying to fuck up some simple clear ideas and start talking about something else.
thereforeithought 1 month ago
You said what you said in that video. If we don't happen to know every part of your personality, you'll have to forgive us. Maybe if I'd watched enough of your videos I would have known what you meant. Next time, specify that your videos are only for long-time subscribers.
SelfImmolator 1 month ago
Perhaps it could be inferred that the possibility might exist that someone might draw the conclusion that such may have been what you might have intended to say, maybe.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
@lazyperfectionist1 Perhaps.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Aha. You see? I thought I might consider toying with the idea of thinking so.
lazyperfectionist1 1 month ago
I'm glad you are doing this. I've gotten to the point where I actually want to punch a lot of them.
t4705mb6 1 month ago
@t4705mb6 Don't get me started. Heh.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Why do you assume that people are not understanding you correctly? Does it not occur to you that a lot of us understand you just fine and that the problem may actually be with your argument? For someone who sings praises about critical thought you sure seem to have an issue directing it inward. It's like you shut out serious criticism in favour of repeating yourself over and over again as if some how repetition makes fact.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune This is not an assumption. The questions people are asking me and the arguments they are making show quite clearly that they are not understanding my position. There is no way their responses make any sense if they DID understand; their responses only make sense if they think I'm saying something other than what I am.
And the subsequent discussions I've had with these people only confirm it. So, no, this is NOT an assumption; it's based in experience.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Which is why you didn't respond to stealthbadger over your agnosticism thing right? He just didn't understand so it wasn't worth the time. Seriously, if your videos are being "misunderstood" so consistently that you keep making clarifications then you aren't communicating very well or your argument in and of itself is flawed.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune Except that it's NOT consistent; I have people responding who understand PERFECTLY, and their comments reflect this.
So the disconnect isn't on MY end.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I'm going out on a limb here and assuming you mean "inconsistent" there... which is why you felt the need to make a video clarifying what you meant, I'm sure.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune No, I meant "consistent". You said, "if your videos are being "misunderstood" so consistently that you keep making clarifications", and I said that they're NOT being consistently misunderstood. I said that SOME people get what I mean without any trouble, so I don't think the problem is on MY end.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance My mistake (see how easy that was!). Again, you're saying that some people get it therefore you're a-ok and it's everyone who doesn't "get it" that's an issue. It still seems to me that a large enough number of people are taking issue that you feel like you should clarify. If parsimony stands then it's more likely you that the issue is with you and not with the large number of people that disagree. Seriously, please thinkg about it for a moment instead of being defensive.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune And the way I see it, you're trying as hard as you possibly can to place the blame on ME. But, frankly, if other people can figure out what I mean, I'm thinkin' the problem is elsewhere. If I'm being defensive, it's probably because of your approach to this entire issue; you're being confrontational and blaming instead of constructive and helpful, and that doesn't exactly make me wanna see your side. And it doesn't help that I genuinely DO disagree with your assessment.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I've just sat back and watched you blame everyone else while repeating yourself and outright ignoring serious arguments. You didn't even comment on the video stealthbadger made. His comment is (or at least was) top rated on your agnosticism video. I'm asking you to actually address some of the sturdy criticism instead of declaring that the only possible way people could disagree is if they don't understand. Spend some time considering what I said. Don't reply right away.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune First of all, I don't even know what video you're talking about from stealthbadger. I haven't seen it, not aware of it.
Second of all, I see YOU ignoring that fact that other people DO understand what I'm talking about. How can it be MY fault if what I've said actually WORKS for some people, hmm? Maybe the problem lies in a paradigm or preconception held by the people fucking it up. I don't see YOU even CONSIDERING that possibility, so...as I see it, post-kettle-black, kiddo.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Remember when I asked you not to reply to me within minutes in favour of spending some time seriously considering what I said? I'm going to make that request again. Badger pmed you the link. This isn't a debate where points are scored. I'm asking you to consider some things instead of reflexively defending yourself punctuated with caps for emphasis. If you reply to me in under 2 minutes again I'll know how the whole "critical thought" thing really stands with you.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune First of all, I have no intention of consider what you have to say so long as you are clearly not considering what I say...and you're clearly not. You're as married to it being my fault as you claim I'm married to it being NOT my fault. When you show signs of considering any OTHER possibility, maybe I'll start being interested in what you have to say.
Second, I have PMs on Friends Only to cut down on spam; if badger sent me anything, I didn't get it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Wow less than two minutes. Congrats. Enjoy your time in your trench. This seems to have everything to do with maintaining some kind of reputation and nothing to do with trying to understand a thing. You'll never learn with that attitude.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune Back at you, kiddo. YOUR attitude is a large part of why this is going nowhere you want it to. When you start showing any possibility of considering YOURSELF wrong, maybe I'll reciprocate. *rolls eyes* Acknowledge that possibility so that this isn't a purely one-side attack, and THEN we might have a discussion.
But not before.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance When did I attack you outside of describing how I perceive your reactions to people who criticise you. Am I wrong in my assessment? Do you or do you not think that everyone who disagrees is either stupid or misunderstanding you? All I did was suggest you not dismiss people as easily as you seem to. If you consider this an attack then again it's demonstrating that you're not open to critical self appraisal.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune Yes, you ARE wrong in your assessment. People who criticize me in a non-confrontational way, with relevance and intelligence, get real answers; witness my replies to ZOMGitsCriss, for example. She managed to never get personal or obnoxious, so SHE got responses. Witness my response to devchelle2 just today; his reply was rational and reasonable, so I gave him the same back.
I think you're biased, frankly, if you've missed these examples and others. How criticism is DELIVERED matters.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Did you or did you not think that Criss didn't really understand? I'm not saying you don't respond to people, I'm saying I think you dismiss their arguments because you seem to think they are either stupid or that they don't understand. I'll admit I'm biased in so far as I have a position and my position is that you dismiss people for what I consider silly reasons. I don't think you spend a lot of time re-assessing your own positions. That's it, nothing more.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune Look, I'm done talking to you...until you can accept some criticism yourself. So long as this is lock-focused on me, I'm simply not discussing it with you. Until you can acknowledge that there is a chance you DON'T have a point, I'm not talking to you.
This will NOT be one-sided, kiddo; you have to be vulnerable TOO. Get me?
So start playin' fair, or we're not having this discussion. Answer my earlier criticisms of YOUR position, or this is over. I'm not playing your game ONLY.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance What exactly do you want me to accept? There's always a possibility of being wrong. I'm not on a pedestal here and I don't recall claiming otherwise. I also didn't say you actually do what I think you do. All of my sentences regarding you have been filled with conditionals like "seems". Again, stop being so defensive. This isn't some kind of chest beating contest. Sigh.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune I asked you REPEATEDLY to acknowledge that you might be mistaken about your assessment of my attitude. You still have not acknowledged that as a possibility. Nor have you answered direct challenges to that effect. You're effectively making this an episode of smearing me. You're ACTING like it's a chest-beating contest. You entire APPROACH makes it precisely that. Perhaps you ought to reconsider how you've approached this discussion. Whatever your intent, you've MADE it confrontational
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Would you like to write up a statement for me to sign?
I, sofiarune, do solemnly swear that I acknowledge the possibility that I am incorrect in my assessment of BionicDance.
Happy? I really don't care for the complaints about me smearing you by being critical. Now please go watch some sturdy criticism of you like the video by stealthbadger. I look forward to seeing how you handle it.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@sofiarune See, and it's PRECISELY statements like "I look forward to seeing how you handle it," that make me NOT want to play along with your dumb butt. Whatever you intend, that has a flavor of "neener neener" to it. "I want to see you how HANDLE IT"... *rolls eyes* Like you expect me to have a fucking cow or something.
Yeah, see...your entire approach has been snide, derisive, and confrontational, and I'm just plain done playing along. Good day.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Talk about preconceptions. I really do look forward to seeing how you handle it. Please stop attributing motive to me. You call me snide but you can't hear me. You're reading text and filling in perceived gaps. I'm frustrated with you at this point, nothing else.
I thought his criticism of you was very good. I'm curious as to whether or not you think he just doesn't get it or if you think he has good points.
sofiarune 1 month ago
@0:38 Yie. Again?? Your arguments here just confirmed how many of us understood you just fine the first time. What "sect" have you invented in your mind that considers itself a "we are all bound together as a team" thing? Besides, based on sheer numbers, most victims of religious stupidity are *in* the same sect as the victimizer...so this whole line of argument falls apart.
And stop labeling everybody who disagrees as being perverse or ignorant. Sry but you too readily fall in that trap.
geodgereturns 1 month ago
You? Grumpy? Nawww, :)
darkwhitedirewolf 1 month ago
Like thunderf00t, you do have to watch and think what you say. Im sure he had the best intentions too, but oh boy did he come across as a massive douchebag. We cant see in your head, only hear what you say, always try to be accurate when sending out dubious messages. Please.
KarujaSipelgas 1 month ago
@KarujaSipelgas The problem is that I THOUGHT this was perfectly clear. And plenty of people DID get it.
The folks who aren't getting it seems to WANT to not get it, frankly, because even after REPEATED clarification, they continue to strawman me, to run in the wrong direction with what I'm saying.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I guess my problem is with the word "responsible" Guilt and responsibility is determined by ones actions not by association. republicofsandles said it like this: "I think its appropriate to cite actions by theists as arguments against some of their ethics, but not as a grounds for personal responsibility."
KarujaSipelgas 1 month ago
@KarujaSipelgas Well, then my question is this: can you get past the problem with that word and address my actual point, or do I have to find a word that you find more palatable?
Cuz I'd really like to discuss the point I was making, and not have to wrangle about how it was expressed so it's more palatable to others. I mean, frankly, I don't know HOW to express my point any way other than I have; if there IS another way, I wanna know it, so the discussion can move forward.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Because of the shaky feet the arguments stands, i would suggest not making it at all. But thats just me.
KarujaSipelgas 1 month ago
@KarujaSipelgas Well, first of all, it's obviously too late for that. But second of all, I think it's an important argument to make, shaky or not.
So I need better suggestions.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance You have made that point from different angles before. Most of them are fine. Add a warning sign to the video: "Possible gross misunderstanding possible by watching this video. Continue on your own peril!"
KarujaSipelgas 1 month ago
@KarujaSipelgas Heh. Maybe I should.
Thanks. :)
BionicDance 1 month ago
@KarujaSipelgas Really? So you couldn't figure it out without it being completely spelled out for you? Wow. Sometimes you really do need to listen to what someone is saying. I understood exactly what she was saying, because it was the only logical conclusion. It's kind of like when someone says, "everyone" when they just mean a lot of people. But some jerk will always start the argument thinking they meant everyone. Communication is two way, not just up to the speaker. Think
Mglosk 1 month ago
@Mglosk Its not that i did not understand, i try to watch it as a outsider, from a persons perspective who sees her videos the first time, who does not know her views and give critical feedback so she can better her arguments. I dont feel a need to just nod along.
KarujaSipelgas 1 month ago
Your position seemed more reasonable in the previous video. Now you seem to be saying individuals in X-sect can be held responsible for the behaviour of other individuals in X-sect, as if shared belief equals shared culpability. I hope I am taking you wrong, because that is simply not true. Individuals are only responsible for wrongs of doctrine plainly endorsed by their church. They may have a moral responsibility to "police" their own, but that holds true for atheists as well.
Blackmark52 1 month ago
@Blackmark52 My position hasn't changed since the original video.
And it's not shared BELIEF. It's shared AFFILIATION. Association. Alliance. It's being in the same formal, explicit group together.
Atheists don't have that formal group; religious people do.
BionicDance 1 month ago 4
@BionicDance I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the first video.
Atheists DO have affiliations. Am I responsible for the actions of others in my local skeptic organization? No. Guilt by association is bogus whether atheist or theist. Individuals must personally endorse and/or defend wrongs in order to be morally culpable. Even with something like the Inquisition, you can't hold individual christians responsible, many were victim more than collaborator. Your scales are tilted.
Blackmark52 1 month ago
@Blackmark52 Actually, if you've formally joined an atheist group--like I have with the Ask An Atheist radio show--and that group misbehaves in a way you do not condemn, you ARE tacitly responsible. Same if christians didn't condemn the Inquisition if they were part a sect that was formally linked to those performing it.
But the fact is that these pockets of formal atheism are not widespread like religions are, and most atheist groups I know of are VERY informal, unlike religions/churches.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance How exactly does condemning an action absolve one of responsibility?
You seem to use a wider brush for theists than for atheists (atheist groups are VERY informal) and don’t distinguish between different levels of participation nor types of affiliation. I have long maintained that moderate christians encourage radicals by accepting the inerrancy of the bible, but to go that extra step and say they are responsible for the actions of radicals is simply unjust.
Blackmark52 1 month ago
@BionicDance If you want to know a better way to explain it then, this is the way to explain it. Formal vs belief. While I may have understood what you were trying to say in the back of my mind, it still came off as something else by the words that were used. I don't claim to be a genius, or to have the right opinion simply because it's mine, but attempting to understand is better then just clicking the back button. Good day. ;)
Mastertaima 1 month ago
@WinniesGottaGoPooh Atheism isn't normative in America and most of the world, so naturally those of us who don't believe in a god give the lack of a believe a cult following. Christianity itself is a massive cult. Ron Paul has a cult following, Tim Burton has a cult following, Jesus has a cult following and Richard Dawkins has a cult following. We like Dawkins because he is oftentimes correct, and the religious dismiss his knowing it as "arrogance".
jaymthegenius 1 month ago
You need a better cam and take off that tacky headset.
Redrio 1 month ago
@Redrio The headset actually does the sound recording; it's kind of required.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@WinniesGottaGoPooh Yes, that's right...cuz atheists are soooooooo devoted to not being theists. Uh-huh. *rolls eyes*
I know very few dogmatic atheists; most of the atheists I know are so because they are critical thinkers, not zealots.
BionicDance 1 month ago 7
@WinniesGottaGoPooh Except that SOME people ARE getting it.
and there are a lot of people who aren't getting it even when it is explained to them on an individual, personal level, and in great detail.
So, no...it's more than that.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Sometimes I think YouTube is a giant Pedantry Polka. :)
WildwoodClaire1 1 month ago
maybe thats your problem your audience is evil geniuses... lol
eyezerocool 1 month ago
As i knew it. Catholics are partly responsible for what their church does, as long as they don't revoke membership, but that doesn't mean, that they are necessarily responsible for what the IRA terrorist does.
It's also important to note, that there are degrees of responsibility, i am even responsible as a human for other humans, aren't i?! I am responsible for the sake of humanity, that people get away from the delusion, that is called religion. Only to a degree, of course.But BD is right here.
MardasMan 1 month ago
I'd still sub, especially if you were a Jerkwad Villain. =)
Heck, I'm subbed to the Pope.
L00NGB00W 1 month ago
These guys like to take people out of context at every possible turn or only attack the most debatable part of the argument.
I guess they have to say something back in response even if its just going to be brushed aside later.
flammamancer 1 month ago
I find a lot of theists I've seen have been aside, holding no ties to anything, while we may hold one common belief in a Christian God, there's nothing else that ever made us allies. All the opinions differed, all the ideals differed. I may still call myself a Christian, and I may or may not be according to some people, but I've felt more allied with atheists and such, and others I've met have been the same. It's not that I completely disagree, I just think there's more grey to it.
Mastertaima 1 month ago
@Mastertaima The problem is that many people--yourself included--are not SEEING the gray I include in what I'm saying.
I speak VERY SPECIFICALLY about affiliation, about allegiance; you're responsible for that to which you have allied yourself. That means that if you've allied yourself to a tiny sect of a larger group, you're not necessarily responsible for the larger group; it depends on circumstances, it DEPENDS on the gray.
Why are people NOT seeing this in what I'm saying? It's THERE.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I haven't though, those people I speak about I couldn't care less about. So I'm not understanding how I owe them anything, or belong to them, when I really could care less about them then well, anyone else. I don't see much difference in believing in something, or not believing in something, when there's literally nothing else in common with the other people that believe, or don't.
Mastertaima 1 month ago
@BionicDance While I may believe in the christian God, I may find Buddhist values to be what I follow, or perhaps I believe in nirvana, or karma, whatever, what group am I under? I'm honestly just curious, maybe I'll find others that believe like me if someone tells me what category I'm supposed to fall under. Anyways, I believe I'm understanding what you're saying, but the way it's coming off, whether wanted or not, is no matter what, theists are allied together in some way, in reality, not all
Mastertaima 1 month ago
@Mastertaima Well, I can't really help the way it's coming off. I'm using words that mean what I mean; if people are misinterpreting and not listening to clarification, that's pretty much on them at this point.
BionicDance 1 month ago
I agree to a point, I've seen theists like this. But I still have to disagree because I've never been. I never have been allied with any sect of Christians, I have no church, and tend to disagree with most people in churches. If it comes down to it, it's simply my parents who I am affiliated with, because they're the only people that had any impact on my christian beliefs. Even there, many of the beliefs change. I may not be understanding correctly everything, but at least I'm attempting to.
Mastertaima 1 month ago
Their own sect? now that's more reasonable.
Anghellik9 1 month ago
@Anghellik9 I brought up allegiance, I brought up affiliation...I don't see how people thought I was speaking more broadly than "the group to which you have become allied".
But they did. And they're wrong.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Why did you remove the previous video?
ThePooperHulk 1 month ago
@ThePooperHulk I don't think I did. *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance Sorry... my bad. Please forgive me...*cowers in fear*
ThePooperHulk 1 month ago
@ThePooperHulk FORGIVENESS IS FOR THE WEAK! *raaar*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance *pees in pants, then flees in fear* I have been reading the comments here, and I think we need a way of beaming thoughts into the viewer... wait, that would be bad. Or would it? *twiddles thumbs with an evil grin*.
ThePooperHulk 1 month ago
We want a "just ranting" video.
HimesInu 1 month ago
Check her catalog. You'll find some. She needs time to recharge before birthing new rants.
shackupyourstruly 1 month ago
Clear as glass. ^_^
realigiousrayne 1 month ago
What type of person would not have understood that? Um... Er... Oh wait, was it the christians? :O/
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 month ago
@Katalyzt POddly, no...it was mostly atheists.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance
Ahhh, I see... :O)
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 1 month ago
Very good video.
toucan780 1 month ago
»So that would make Bethany... part black?« (Jason Mewes as Jay, »Dogma«, 1999)
Dunno why that came to my mind.
virumoz 1 month ago
i didn't see your original video in the light that some folks did. that said, i don't think anyone should be presumed to adhere to the beliefs (or actions) of the group they may be seen as part of.
individual responsibility FTW.
gothatfunk 1 month ago
@gothatfunk But GTF...they do more than simply adhere to beliefs, don't they?
They pay tithes, they lend moral support, they lend political support, they advocate.
This goes beyond personal responsibility; people lend support to those who misbehave, and in that way they do, in fact, bear some of the responsibility, do they not?
BionicDance 1 month ago
well then, by that logic, every war crime committed by (or under) the george bush regime is the responsibility of every american - especially AFTER the 2004 election. after all, we live in a country where leaders are freely chosen, & even if we do not vote, that may be seen as tacit approval.
i get where you are coming from here, but my firm belief is that you cannot hold an entire group responsible for the actions of individual members, nor are individuals culpable for the actions of a group.
gothatfunk 1 month ago
@gothatfunk Actually, I'd say that those war crimes ARE the responsibility of every American...and some of us do NOT like what was done in our names. That's why we protested the war, to voice our opposition to what was done in our names, to take responsibility by telling those in charge to knock it the hell off.
You see, as much as you CAN hold a whole group responsible for the actions of individual members, as members yourselves, you can TAKE responsibility by opposing those individuals.
BionicDance 1 month ago
well K8, with respect, i cannot agree. if captured by an american hating terrorist while travelling, they would not give a rat''s ass about my vote for the other guy, or my marching in the pre-war Stop The War marches, or my advocacy for withdrawl. i'm an american, so i am to blame, according to the terrorist mentality. that's a mentality i do not share.
opposing bad actions is requisite, i agree, but to people who think groups are homogenous entities, its not sufficeint. IMO its faulty logic.
gothatfunk 1 month ago
@gothatfunk But, GTF...what does this terrorist you're describing have to do with what I'M advocating? That's not the position I hold, that's not what I'm advocating here. So I'm not seeing whatever it is you're seeing here...it's like you're transferring the terrorist's mentality onto MY point, basically setting up a strawman.
And I respect you and your mental capacity, so I can only assume it's a miscommunication or a paradigm problem; we're not communicating properly somewhere, I think.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Do you smeeeeeeeeellll what Bionic Dance is cooken?
sandform 1 month ago
Most religious people haven't joined a damn thing, they've simply been born to religious parents and indoctrinated. To join a religion is almost never a decision, informed or otherwise.
And no, even people of the same religion aren't bound together by a common set of beliefs. There are as many ways to believe, as there are believers.
SAsgarters 1 month ago
@SAsgarters They have, however, made the conscious choice to stay with that religion.
HimesInu 1 month ago
@HimesInu I disagree.
SAsgarters 1 month ago
@SAsgarters The vast majority of Christians, I say Christians because they are the vast majority of the people I talk to, tell me that they will always believe, regardless of what they are told. That is where the conscious choice comes in.
HimesInu 1 month ago
@HimesInu Implying that what you believe or don't believe is a matter of conscious choice.
SAsgarters 1 month ago
@SAsgarters You actually do have to make a conscious choice. Do I continue believing what I believe or do I look further into what is being said to me?
HimesInu 1 month ago
@HimesInu Once again, I disagree.
SAsgarters 1 month ago
@SAsgarters You're good to disagree. I'm just trying to explain the viewpoint.
HimesInu 1 month ago
Appreciate the clarification. Sorry to make you rage more, but:
You say atheists "haven't joined anything", but many of us have. Do you judge atheist groups as you judge religious denominations? If not, why not?
Many theists despise and reject organised religion. Are they in any sense responsible for the crimes of others who share their faith?
I think you're talking about organisations, and that "theist" vs "atheist" was misleading (hence the drama). If so, then we're agreed.
-Pat
ThinkingSpeck 1 month ago
I still disagree, but I think most of the confusion is coming from the distinction between being responsible and being indifferent. If you're a catholic who doesn't protest the sheltering of pedophiles then that doesn't make you responsible but it doesn't make you blameless either. That, I think, is where the confusion lies.
Dance, I like your videos, the fact that not all your subscribers are going to agree with you on every point shouldn't be taken so much to heart :)
MeBeMat 1 month ago
If I suspect something unseemly, all I can do is report it to as many people as I can. What happens afterwards is up to them. If nothing changes later, try again. Don't expect someone else to report it. But, what if I find myself unable to report due to fear or some other inadequacy?
shackupyourstruly 1 month ago
So you are saying what I thought you're saying. Catholicism is one 'sect' of christianity so by what you've just said every single catholic, all one BILLION of them, are responsible for the acts of the pedophile priests right?
You said it. you're not talking about all religious people, you're talking about those of the same sect. well catholicism is one sect. all catholics, ALL of them, are part of one single sect.
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
Comment removed
shackupyourstruly 1 month ago
Pardon me. I hit the reply link for the wrong comment.
*(]:-)L
shackupyourstruly 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky *facepalm* What I'm talking about are people who are affiliated, people who are allied to each other. People to whom there is a reasonable connection.
If you want to interpret that too broadly, that's up to you, but you're obviously STILL missing my message. *rolls eyes*
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance "If you are part of a specific sect then you are responsible for the people in that sect"
YOU said that
Catholicism is a sect, every catholic is part of the same sect. There are all affiliated, they are all allied, they are all connected.
That's not interpretating too broadly, that's what you said
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky So if you've paid tithes to the catholic church, if you've given them your support, you have NO responsibility for how they use that support? *raised eyebrow* Really?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance so you ARE saying that all aspprox one billion catholics hold some responsibility for the actions of pedo priest then.
So why did you facepalm my initial comment and say I missed the message?
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky Do you DENY that there is some culpability here? That if one does not speak out, they are giving tacit approval to those to whom they are allied?
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance but there ARE catholics who are speaking out and condeming those priests. There is outrage amongst many catholics. Many had no idea that it was happening so, to answer your question, if they had no prior knowledge then they have NO responsibility just because they're members of the same sect as long as they condem those priests when they do find out
Simply being part of the same sect does not automatically make them responsible, that's guilt by association
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky So there ARE Catholics who are speaking out...GOOD. That means THEY actually understand the point I'm making and agree with it. I applaud those Catholics.
The ones who had no idea? They're still culpable; they gave their support. The question is what they do AFTER they find out what was done in their name, with their tacit support. Culpability does not just have to be explicit.
Furthermore, this misses the larger point about atheists not having this kind of affiliation.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance "They're still culpable; they gave their support."
Seriously? so supporting a sect that officially says child rape is wrong makes them culpable when someone rapes a child?
Responsibility comes with knowledge. It's daft to say that someone is responsibly for the actions of someone else when they don't even have knowledge of those actions...
I would agree though with tacit approval/acceptance if they say nothing after they have knowledge
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
@Scarletpooky No, responsibility comes with SUPPORT. If you gave your money to a group, and that group does something disgusting with it, you supported them, you gave them the means to do what they did. That makes you responsible, even though you had no idea what they'd do with the money.
Now, your last sentence...? WE AGREE...except that you give your tacit support even without your knowledge. That's just simply a fact. Having knowledge just increases your culpability, it does not create it.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance so I guess you'll be advising people to never give money and support to any and all group/ organisation/ charity/ trade union/ etc because if someone there missuses those funds (without knowledge or concent) they share responsibility
or are you making a special exception that it only applies to religious groups?
Scarletpooky 1 month ago
People can profess to do something in the name of a group, but they could just be using that as an excuse in an attempt to deflect responsibility.
marasu66 1 month ago
Question for clarification purposes regarding your point: would, in your view, Michael Vick's teammates be responsible for his dog fighting in the same manner as Quakers are responsible for other Quakers? If not, then could you please explain the distinction,or the meaning that I am missing.
SephieRothe 1 month ago
Keight? Religious people can read "Here's how you shall own your slaves" as "Thou shalt not own slaves". If they can misinterpret blatant statements, are you really surprised at what they can do with a bit of ambiguity?
Also, whenever someone sees my clever suggested outro, they should totally check out my channel. Because, clearly, I'm an entertainment genius who is criminally under-subscribed :P
Sines314 1 month ago
@Sines314 The problem is...it was mostly atheists who took me wrong on this one, not religious people. *shakes head sadly*
BionicDance 1 month ago
So if you are fan(member) of a sportsteam, and some hooligans (also members of the same sportsteam) should you be apologizing for their behaviour? I also find it funny from someone who ascribe to the idea of people being their own god, that people ought to take distance from the religion that they (per definition as stated above) is not part of, hence being their own god. Should Ken Miller speak up against every wrong thing the catholics do? And where does it end?
atomicnumber86 1 month ago
I get your point. It was quite clear. But one has to ask; are all Muslims responsible for 911? Or is that just guilt by association? Do they have any more responsibilty than the average person for the behaviour of others professing a similar ideology?
Templetonq 1 month ago
@Templetonq *facepalm* You clearly DIDN'T get my point if you're asking THAT question.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance "If you are part of a specific sect then you are responsible for the people in that sect."
My point is: how "specific" should we be? All Musilms have the same goal; the convert the world to Islam. They just disagree on the method.
I'm sure you'd agree that those who speak out against terrorism and do what they can to oppose it are not to blame.
What about Nazis who didn't know about the death camps - or did but could do nothing about it?
Templetonq 1 month ago
@Templetonq I'm not saying this is your point; only that the question arises from the discussion.
Templetonq 1 month ago
@Templetonq Isn't it nice to have bad guys again? Ever since that Holocaust thing, it's just not fashionable to accuse the Jews of wanting to take over the world.
tctheunbeliever 1 month ago
@tctheunbeliever Whe tell ME this?
Templetonq 1 month ago
Comment removed
Templetonq 1 month ago
The outro you are using for this video is really Pascals wager in disguise.
itsjustameme 1 month ago
@itsjustameme It's been pretending to be a gangster; it's an offhand way of saying, "Rate, or I have my goons fuck you up!"
Have you never seen a gangster movie? *raised eyebrow*
BionicDance 1 month ago
Ugh! Don't get me started on people who actually refuse to figure out the bloody obvious for themselves.
dechha1981 1 month ago
So, let me get this straight....you're saying that Lutherans are responsible for what Shias do. Okay, I think I've got your position now.
1140Cecile 1 month ago 6
@1140Cecile Don't make me hurt you. :P
BionicDance 1 month ago 8
What you mean is religious people are responsible for the actions of their sect as a whole. You can't say that every Catholic is responsible when ONE Catholic robs a convenience store. You can't say that all Orthodox Jews are responsible when ONE Orthodox Jew rapes someone. But if it's something that happens over and over again in the same sect, especially by leaders of the sect, the followers have an obligation to speak up rather than sit back and watch it happen.
coda623 1 month ago
epic ending Xd
Akeemthedrummer3 1 month ago
Yes, religionists today did not take part in the Holy Inquisition's crimes, they just stand by the way of 'thinking' that created it and sponsored it.
And they are the ones paying the salaries of priests and ministers , elters etc. so they can continue to brain wash youn people, not to mention sexually, phisically, and mentaly abusing them.
Adipatus 1 month ago
you could have made a 30 second video because , once you said "i can only assume the ones that take me wrong, WANT to take me wrong"!!! it's not only easy to understand, but if someone didn't and you replied and explained to them what you meant, from that point on , it makes no sense to go back to their original thought! Rock on and tell them to fuck off!!!
thereligioussnitch 1 month ago
Been there, done that. I forget which one but at least one of my videos was a retake because at one point I was so pissed off I was worried I might actually hurt the listener's ears.
dechha1981 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm confident I didn't misconstrue, and I'm not an idiot.
You can try to cover your tracks, but I understood what you said.
By the FederalistFilms is all most certainly not an idiot. How dare you slander him in this way.
I'm un-subscribing from you.
Why? Because your biased as a broken scale.
republicofsandles 1 month ago
Comment removed
republicofsandles 1 month ago
We as atheists may not be required to keep each other in check because we have not joined a group and simply have the same point of view on the subject of god. But i take a little bit of pride in knowing that another atheist will point me in the right direction if i step out of line and under certain conditions, back me up. This is something that we do not need a church for or an all knowing sky daddy to tell us to do.
coldpawofthefurs 1 month ago
at this point your probably being trolled, though i wouldn't doubt the ignorance of some people.
naturalistmind 1 month ago
Grumpy! Such a wonderful word and I think that having an umpteenth take where one can regard back to the grumpy and the WWF moments in it is a beautiful intro.
ThePrinceOfMillAve 1 month ago
I think you're falling into the trap of the dingbats that don't seem to understand what thinking means.
Gazgule2 1 month ago
@Gazgule2 You may be right.
BionicDance 1 month ago
Yes, stupid people are making me angry today too...
Darkfirebrand 1 month ago
Agreed! If you are a catholic and you know there is a systematic attempt to keep sexual abuse quiet and that doesn't bother you enough to complain or speak up, then you are as culpable as the villiagers in WW2 germany who saw the trains go by in the morning and the smell of burning flesh rise in the evening. If you know an atrocity is being commiting by those you support and you do not oppose them then you are culpable, if not to blame.
Felhaven 1 month ago 16
@Felhaven See, there we go...! Someone else who gets it! Thank you!
BionicDance 1 month ago
bacon !
MrAtrophy 1 month ago
@MrAtrophy Om nom nom nom nom nom nom!
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
I'm not sure I agree. If I'm Catholic and a Catholic priest molests a child, I'm not responsible for them doing that. I should certainly try to stop it from happening if not simply because it's the right thing to stop them then because it reflects badly on something I hold dear (my religion) if I don't, but I can't control the actions of others and I shouldn't be held responsible unless I aid them in their actions.
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth I say that if you lend support to the Catholic church, you are--however tacitly--endorsing its behavior. And if you want the organization you'e affiliated with to NOT be giving shelter to these pedophiles, you DO have a responsibility to speak up.
BionicDance 1 month ago 16
@BionicDance Maybe Catholicism was a bad example '~'
What I mean is, it's not your responsibility if someone in your religion does something malign and you, and your leaders, denounce it and try to prevent it. You're no more responsible than anyone outside of your religion for the actions of affiliated individuals.
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth If you are supporting an organization that is doing terrible things, you are tacitly responsible. I cannot see it any other way.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance But if it's just individuals within that organisation, while others in the organisation denounce the actions of those individuals, does that not change things?
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth Well, of COURSE denouncing them changes things. Policing your own is important.
But there are those who say you don't HAVE to, and some who thought that My definition of "your own" was much much broader than I'd actually said.
This is what I'm arguing against.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth Yes, but as with the case of the church, that is not what is happening.
TheAnubisDrake 1 month ago
@BionicDance So if we support a government like ours in the U.S., then are we responsible for them starting a war that some of us were against?
Tyrian1991 1 month ago
@Tyrian1991 I think we bear some responsibility, yes. Unless, say, you're an activist speaking out against the war your country has started.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance K. Just wanted to get that clarified lol. I was thinking you were saying completely different on your video because your statement was to broad >.>
Tyrian1991 1 month ago
@Tyrian1991 I still don't see how people could think that, frankly. Not without thinking I'm a total asshole or an idiot. C'mon...gimme some credit, here.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance I never thought you were a total asshole or anything like that. I love your videos and frankly they keep me from boredom most of the time lol. But misunderstandings do happen especially on the internet.
Tyrian1991 1 month ago
@Tyrian1991 I suppose...but if you know me that well from my vids, I'd think you could know I wouldn't mean something THAT shitty! Just sayin'.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth that would depend upon whether you support crimens solicitamus (sp) and whether you would shelter or cover-up the behaviour of said priest.
jimthepleb 1 month ago
@jimthepleb Well BD's right about the Catholic church. Its leaders attempted to cover the whole thing up and its leaders are the ones who'll get most of the money you donate and who add your name to the weight of their political clout.
CuriousMoth 1 month ago
@CuriousMoth oh believe me i am no fan of the church:) indeed i find it odd that some of my family have stayed in it despite what they know of what has happened, to me it seems like a bizarre form of cognitive dissonance, a sort of, hate the sin not the sinner to a factor of 9000
jimthepleb 1 month ago
So your saying all those people who can't read your mind and go off the words you actually said in the video are dumb asses. I actually don't believe you, I think you meant exactly what you said in the video when you were saying it, then after people gave you crap about it you realized it was dumb, and now your pretending more specificity was implied, as if it was said clearly, which it wasn't at all. Not Buyin it. Not for a dollar. lol.
DarkFantasyvids 1 month ago
@DarkFantasyvids Then you're PRECISELY the kinna person I was talking about: the one who WANTS me to be a villain. *rolls eyes*
You don't have to believe me...but I'm telling the truth, an the evidence is right in this video, in the clips from the other video I editing into my mini-rant here. If you can't see it, then you're either fooling yourself or you're a chowderhead. Pick one.
BionicDance 1 month ago
@BionicDance You just told me in the comments in your last video that this is true about all theists: "They have dogma in common, holy days in common, holy buildings in common, leaders in common, values in common. They are more than just people with a single belief in common" "They".. If your not going to be more specific then continue to expect people to misconstrue what your saying. People can't read your mind, Stop engaging in rhetorical generalizations if your tired of it.
DarkFantasyvids 1 month ago