Beorn
Permabanned
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 5,005
He is an ever-flowing fountain of poisonous lies. Calling him delusional is a way to detox the lies. The alternative is bottling them up until the end of happiness.
Surely there is something in the Bible about punishing false prophets that you can use to calm your consciousness.
I agree with the first paragraph. I don't agree that it's a pointless persuasive measure since it's the essence of saying "you're wrong". The point, I believe, is that it would be wrong to be silent about the issue. Whether he figures that out or not is a different issue entirely. At this juncture, he's placed his faith in a number of esoteric stances about the nature of historical events; he believes that character is determined by race and that the enemy is cosmopolitanism, when well managed cosmopolitan actions would yield benefits to white people and everyone involved. The interesting thing about rationalization - you can deduce people's unsaid viewpoints. This guy's a white supremacist, plain and simple. I don't think it's fine to say that his beliefs are justified or imply it by defaulting on an irrelevant tangent about how so-and-so isn't accepting him as a person.
I'm genuinely sorry that I indicated that the only options were to either reason with him or ignore him. Moral condemnation of his views is a good response, too. I think his views are lies from the pits of hell and I don't have any problem saying that. It seems to me that many people tend to confuse what is rational, irrational, and morally reprehensible.
I don't think that calling him delusional is equivalent to calling him wrong by morally condemning his beliefs. The reason why I make a big deal out of it is because this has real world impacts on how we treat each other in society. In America on a wider national and statewide level we generally recognize the maintenance of moral viewpoints to be outside the jurisdiction of the state and within the jurisdiction of religion (with the exception, in my opinion, of public schooling). However, the care and treatment of the mentally impaired is within the jurisdiction of the state. If we start conflating what is morally wrong with mental instability we very well might be on our way to a clockwork orange dystopian future where the only thing worst than the crime is the prevention of crime.
Of course mental instability and morally reprehensible viewpoints do coincide, but they aren't the same thing and don't necessitate each other.
Even better. Making faith the basis of knowledge is very subjective because faith is very subjective.
I'm not making it so, I think it's inescapable.
For me it's something of a compulsion to respond to people being incredibly wrong. At least in this case I can count on plenty of other people criticizing him. It's worst when no one else is, then I feel I have to respond because saying bullshit go unanswered is just too uncomfortable.
That fact that what he's saying is so awful is actually more important than his mental wealth when it comes to whether or not I should respond to him. You're the one that became particularly fixated on the observation. I don't think anyone here who's calling him crazy is doing so because they need something to discredit his statements. It's the other way around. His statements and his reasoning have so little credit that it is suspected he is mentally ill. Why would anyone need to make that accusation anyhow? If someone said all these things, but then a psychiatrist told us that he was certifiably sane, would we all say "oh, well then I guess it's okay"?
Lastly, even if people did need him to be crazy, how that make him any less crazy?
See above.
It's not possible to hold the kinds of beliefs that he does and NOT be crazy. The only other option is that he's a troll, but given his history and the tone of his posts in this thread, that option seems unlikely.
Thanks for continuing to prove my points with your assertions.