Page 10 of 22

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:11 am
by PantyGnawer
Babylon is all of western civilization to REAL Rastas.

Hay Lig! Where did your breakfast come from this morning? Where do you live? Are you living off the teet of western civilization "Babylonians"?

The obvious answer is YES.

Do you know how I know? Because you have a fucking internet connection.

Are you so fucking stupid that you can't see the irony of you calling us "Babylonians" over a fucking internet connection?

Have you been to Jamaica? Have you hung out with REAL Rastas living truly Ital?

I have! They have bamboo shacks and sit by the light of kerosene filled bottles of Red Stripe with a wick. They live naturally and eat naturally, and that I can totally respect. I had a great time with them.

You elijah, are a total poser. Comin here on yer high speed internet trying to tell us that we're representing Babylon.

You are a fake rasta trying to fake us with your fake tales of oppression. I hold little regard for most religion but I will say that I hold Rastas in a higher regard than most. You sir, do not fit into this group.

Stop bulllshiting us by claiming that you speak for this group, when its obvious that this is a group who wouldn't even have you.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:31 am
by elijah
purplegoddess wrote:Why do I want him to "prove" he's a rasta?
If he can't answer basic questions, or debate theology he has no right to call himself a Rasta

Again my existence as, or "right to call myself" Rasta has nothing to do with the fact that the term Pastafarian is a racial and religious slur oppressing Rastafarian people, so continually bringing it up just demonstrates the pettiness of your capacities to approach the issue. Furthermore the problem would not be my ability to debate Rastafari theology but your ability to recognize it as such. And seeing as it has no relation to the conversation, Why would I let it become as distraction?
Though I will admit that the frequent speculations as to my "race" within the challenges do help illustrate my point as to why the term pastafarian is a function of unjust persecution.
PantyGnawer wrote:Are you so fucking stupid that you can't see the irony of you calling us "Babylonians" over a fucking internet connection?
As being a babylonian relates to a state of mind such as the one that belittles the religions of others and despite what you think you know about "REAL rasta" nothing to do with an internet connection OR western civilization which both in fact REAL Rasta's have a respect for, I do not see any irony, yet on account of knowledge.
Stop bulllshiting us by claiming that you speak for this group,

To my knowledge I have claimed to speak for no one but myself. You are another who demonstrates an inability to engage the issue by bringing up the inconsequential consideration of whether or not I "speak for the group" as opposed to whether the promotion of Pastafarianism is truly damaging to individual adherents of Rastafarian Religion.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:35 am
by Cardinal Fang
So, in order to try and get some sanity back into this "debate", I asked a colleague at work who is a proper Rastafarian (dreads, believes both Jesus and Christ and Haille Selessie are incarnations of Jah Rastafari etc) whether he found the term Pastafarian offensive.

After the usual "what's that?", he thought it was a bloody brilliant idea (I think his exact words were "that's f*cking brilliant") and that any Rastafarian who decided it was offensive was a) very insecure in his faith, b) a total twat and c) too stupid to work out that it was a spoof anyway.

He said that anyone who pisses off the white Babalonian Christian fundamentalists who corrupted the teachings of Christ was alright in his book, and that applies to FSM-ists.

Granted this is the view of one Rastafarian only, but he's pretty devout, so I take his word.

CF

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:14 am
by elijah
First of all a Rastafarian would never speak like that when asked for an opinion representing His Majesty he knew would be made public. Secondly what Rastafarians in particular think has no direct bearing to the topic. And don't discount "the usual what's that", if you did not get his immediate reaction to the word with no prompting your a poor investigator or insecure, since I imagine he would have recognized the term as the racist slur it is without your setting him under duress to appease your "scientific rationalism"(read white supremacy) in appearing complacent in the workplace.
Insecurity is what needs to twist the issue into one regarding "who was offended". Suffice to say that this vexation of g-dlessness has absolutely no possibility of "offending" any Rastafarian. What it offends is the justice that a Rastafarian protects in that the FSM in its promotion of the term pastafarian has gone beyond the spirit of the purpose of its creation and IS HARMING PEOPLE.
Understanding the issue as a "spoof" only furthers my argument because of the religion of Rastafarians already precarious status in terms of recognition, a pun of its name representing a spoof indirectly promotes the idea that the Rastafarians are unworthy of the legal recognition of a genuine religion. This is the power of a pun, that I know carries the force of truth to my argument that the term should be discontinued. Just as is real the force of truth that Rastafarians are deserving of a full legitimation to their religious practice.
Were the FSM movement good spirited as opposed to directly conscious of its needful exploitation afflicted on Rastafarians, the term would have been conceded automatically. The vile objections to its removal only helps to reveal the deep seeded resentment that makes the issue more than a joke. In such a defense more illogicality like that of proponents of teaching ID in schools is seen, as through an ignorant denial that the word pastafarian was created based on, and exists inseparable to, the Rastafarians, FSMist's neglect their responsibility for the effects the word, regardless of their intentions, can have on its "host" so to speak.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:12 pm
by elijah
thelastpirate wrote:1. A plural should not have an apostrophe.


Though arguments of this capacity do seem to rule the day.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:38 pm
by Elvalia
elijah wrote:
thelastpirate wrote:1. A plural should not have an apostrophe.


Though arguments of this capacity do seem to rule the day.

I prefer arguments of that nature to the assumptions, evasions, and offhand accusations you seem so eager to post.

Tell me what exactly it is you're trying to obtain from this argument of yours. Consolation? Sympathy? An apology because somebody hurt your feelings on Tribe.net?

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 pm
by elijah
As would account for appearance indicating the favor of such. My argument consists of provision.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:14 pm
by Zankou 2.0
Your argument consists of your head bein' so far up yer ass that we can't even see your point of view.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:42 pm
by Elvalia
elijah wrote:As would account for appearance indicating the favor of such.

I spoke of my preference alone. My preference accounts for nothing of the sort.
elijah wrote:My argument consists of provision.

That's wonderful. No one asked what your argument consisted of. Do you not understand questions asked, or are you trying to be evasive? For the former, you need only ask for an explanation, and if it is (as I suspect) the latter, it implies that you have no answer.
elijah wrote:
Elvalia wrote:and you cannot expect your argument to carry any weight at all.

Expectations are the domain of uncertainty.

If you dislike uncertainty so much, it's inadvisable to avoid questions posed.

I like a good discussion/argument as well as the next person, but it only if the words remain respectful and the participants can defend their views and accept when they've been proven wrong. For these reasons, I doubt I'll be posting in this topic again.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:19 pm
by elijah
Elvalia wrote:No one asked what your argument consisted of. Do you not understand questions asked?

The proponent of providing argument does not consider acquiesce, of which you enquired, Relating that rather you did not understand the answer.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:48 pm
by Zankou 2.0
...Okay, even I don't understand you. Speak dumb people English.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:41 am
by PantyGnawer
Zankou 2.0 wrote:...Okay, even I don't understand you. Speak dumb people English.


He talks so sufistikated that O'm tempted tuh hassume he must just be roight.

Funny thing about that......

Lets look closer:


elijah wrote:
Elvalia wrote:No one asked what your argument consisted of. Do you not understand questions asked?

The proponent of providing argument does not acquiesce, of which you enquired, Relating that rather you did not understand the answer.


What the quote doesn't show. (but my browser does)
Last edited by elijah on Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:59 pm, edited 5 times in total.


Holy fricking crap! I am guilty of editing like hell because I see misspellings, out of place commas, and missing apostrophes (because Zankou will catch me on it). But 5 fricking edits for a one sentence response? Apparently it takes alot of work to sound so eloquent yet not say anything at all.

That's actually pretty insane even by "internet" standards. And you all know what I'm talking about.

While I feel that this guys neuroses(es?) about religious persecution or even pun persecution are only mildly amusing based on nominal Troll standards, I guarantee that the crazy hole goes much deeper than any of us have previously realized.

No one make any sharp movements or go all MPT on "his ass". Lets keep this troll around for awhile. This crazy hole will reap a treasure trove of entertainment for quite some time!

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 5:02 pm
by elijah
I also appreciate that such arguments as to the quantity of times a work is edited like that which illuminates misplaced apostrophes can appear superficially dominant.

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:37 pm
by PantyGnawer
The only thing it illuminates is that you are batshit crazy. I like how you edited it once more after my post. Way to go that extra mile!

Re: "Religion" of Hate

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:32 pm
by elijah
Unfortunately for you such a fact would have no relation to the reality of your injustice.